Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Nuclear Generating Capacity

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in nuclear generating capacity since 1975.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): Since 1975 the CEGB has commissioned the AGR station at Hinkley Point at an interim capacity of 800 megawatts. Power stations in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Knox: By how much does my hon. Friend expect our nuclear capacity to increase over the next five years and how will that increase compare with progress in other EEC countries?

Mr. Lamont: I cannot give a precise figure for the next five years. For the moment, our nuclear capacity provides almost 13 per cent. of electricity supplied. When the AGRs at present under construction come on stream that proportion will, I think, increase to almost 20 per cent. By the year 2000 when the Government's programme of a station per year from 1982 onwards has been completed, the proportion of electricity supplied might be nearer 30 per cent.
In comparison with other countries, on the evidence of present trends, a much smaller proportion of our electricity will be supplied by nuclear power in the year 2000 than is the case in other countries. France and Japan will have a higher proportion in the year 1985 than we shall have in the year 2000.

Mr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether those figures represent available capacity or rated capacity? It is important that the House gets it right.

Mr. Lamont: The figures that I quoted were for electricity supplied.

North Sea Oil Licences (Seventh Round)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what date he has fixed for the announcement of allocations for the seventh round of offshore oil licences.

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the arrangements for the seventh round of licences for the exploitation of North Sea oil.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): My right hon. Friend will be announcing the full arrangements for the round and the blocks to be offered for licensing very soon.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and express the hope that the announcement will be made soon? Will my hon. Friend say specifically how he expects the arangements for BNOC will be constructed on this occasion compared with participation agreements in the previous round?

Mr. Gray: Negotiations are taking place on the BNOC arrangements. We have received representations from the oil industry and from those outwith the industry as to how the arangements might best be achieved. My hon. Friend would not, I think, expect me to anticipate the announcement to be made by my right hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in making the announcement on the seventh round means that the companies will miss the weather window in 1980? Furthermore, is my hon. Friend aware that the constant changes in PRT combined with the uncertainty about the role of BNOC will have a seriously adverse effect on future drilling activity?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is taking an unduly pessimistic view. There has been no undue delay. These are important matters and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, for the sake of a few weeks, it is essential that they are properly


resolved and that we reach the right conclusions.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister agree that there is considerable disquiet in the industry, which believes that there ought to be more than 70 blocks announced in the seventh round? What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the rig market, particularly in view of the loss of the "Alexander Keilland"?

Mr. Gray: It is correct that the industry would have preferred a larger round and we are, of course, taking due note of all representations. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, dealing with the rig market all available exploration and appraisal rigs are at present in use. It is not expected that drilling in connection with the seventh round will take place before 1981. The drilling taking place at the moment is on old acreage. That has been made much more attractive, not only by price rises but by the relevant Government policies.

Mr. MeQuarrie: Before the Minister allocates the seventh round of offshore licences, will he undertake to make regulations on the debris from these rigs that floats about the North Sea and to have consultations with the fishing industry to ensure that the damage that is done to fishing vessels is eliminated or, alternatively, is properly compensated for? Is he aware that at the moment regulations do not exist and the oil operators are getting away with pure murder?

Mr. Gray: I know of the concern that my hon. Friend always shows about this matter, with his constituency interest. I assure him that the Government are having close consultations with the fishing industry and, indeed, with others outside the oil industry.

Mr. Sproat: We quite understand that my hon. Friend cannot give us the full details of BNOC's role after the seventh round, but will he at least give us a guarantee that the automatic right of BNOC to sit on all the operating committees will no longer apply?

Mr. Gray: Consultations are taking place regarding the BNOC and the joint operating committees. The proposals at present being considered are that BNOC should have limited rights and that those

rights should be put into effect only when the uplifting of oil or directly related issues are concerned.

European Community (Council of Energy Ministers)

Mr. Waldegrave: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he intends to meet the EEC Energy Ministers.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I expect to meet other EEC Energy Ministers at the Energy Council meeting planned for early May. The exact date has yet to be arranged.

Mr. Waldegrave: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to imagine a European common energy policy, whether based on a levy on imported energy or on anything else, which would not constitute an even greater absurdity than the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Lamont: The Government's view is that the main thrust of energy policy must come from national energy policies. At the same time, there may be certain areas, such as setting oil import targets for the Community as a whole, where international collaboration is called for and where an EEC attitude may be appropriate. However, the main thrust of energy policy remains with national Governments.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. Friend discusses very thoroughly at the next meeting of Energy Ministers the appalling problems of the coal mining industry in the rest of the Community? Will he also ensure that Britain supports arrangements and policies which will assist its industry and equitably bring about the necessary support which our own industry should receive?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have put forward a series of proposals emphasising the importance of coal in supplying the Community's energy needs. Of course, we have drawn attention to the great part that the United Kingdom's coal industry can play in supplying the Community's needs. Those proposals are before the Commission and we are awaiting an answer.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a world in which there will be increasing competition for energy, a


sensible energy policy for this country cannot be worked out—even if most of it comes from our own resources and decisions—except within the context of a European common energy policy?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with that, but my hon. Friend must also recognise that the resources of the different countries vary considerably. National policies diverge considerably and consumption patterns vary from country to country. Therefore, it is not easy to agree a common production policy.

Mr. Stoddart: Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be no trade-off of our energy policy and our own energy interests at the Summit meeting in return for any reduction in our net contribution to the EEC?

Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to our contribution to the budget, that question stands on its own, unrelated to energy.

Gas (Availability and Price)

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had from industry on the price and availability of gas.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Over the past six months my Department has received 60 representations from industry about the price of gas and a further 60 about availability.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the event of a normal cold winter and no steel strike, gas supplies to industry would be in jeopardy? Will he therefore consider whether, in the Gas Bill now before the House, we should consider the removal of the statutory obligation to provide gas on demand to domestic as well as to industrial consumers?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. I think that would be a matter of considerable controversy. The obligation to supply gas is of long standing. However, I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. John Evans: If and whenever the so-called enterprise zones get off the ground, will the Department of Energy ensure that firms moving into the enterprise zones will he able to obtain a supply of gas?

Mr. Lamont: We shall do our best to co-operate in the setting up of enterprise zones. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the supply of gas to any firm is a matter for the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while we continue to market gas to the domestic consumer below the European and world price, there must continue to be distortions in the market place or shortages?

Mr. Lamont: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

North Sea (Oil and Gas Exploration)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he now proposes to take to encourage oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): The Government propose to continue with their present policies which already show signs of stimulating an improvement in the level of exploration.

Mr. Skeet: Does the Secretary of State believe that advancing petroleum revenue tax by 25 per cent. in one year is an incentive? Does he also believe that reserving to BNOC an option to take 51 per cent. of the available oil and gas is an incentive? Does he further believe that giving small operators no special incentive to operate in the North Sea will be in their interests?

Mr. Howell: None of these points has got in the way of the increased incentive momentum that we are now seeing in exploration. I am confident that, when the announcement on the seventh round is made, that will provide further momentum and that we shall see a considerable stepping-up in exploration and development in our North Sea programme. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but I do not believe that any of these matters have acted as substantial disincentives in achieving the momentum and the increased expansion in our North Sea programme which we all want to see.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that we have done sufficient exploration now to indicate that there is ample oil coming from the North Sea to stop us worrying unduly about the Middle East? Does he agree that groveling


apologies by the Foreign Secretary to Saudi Arabia are no longer necessary because we have so much oil now coming from the North Sea?

Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up a number of questions. First, exploration now means oil in eight, nine or 10 years, because that is the length of time that it takes to develop an exploration well. Therefore, we have to think ahead about oil supplies.
As for oil availability now, I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the quality of the oil that we produce, the match with our refineries and the need to enter into world trade in oil, involve us both in exporting and importing oil. Therefore, it is in our interests to see a stable world oil market, stable prices and stable trade on the basis of good relations between other countires.

Mr. Emery: In considering future action to deal with production in the North Sea—and as there is no question on the Order Paper about this matter—can my right hon. Friend say anything further about the safety requirements and problems of semi-submersibles following his statement in the House just before the Easter Recess?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is nothing on the Order Paper about this matter. I undertook to him and to others to keep the House informed. I am today answering a written question on progress so far in relation to the inquiry being held by the Norwegian authorities into the "Alexander Keilland" disaster. From that he will learn that, although the inquiry is entirely in Norwegian hands, we are being kept closely informed. Obviously, at each stage that we learn about information relevant to the accident, we shall immediately apply it to our inspection surveys of our semi-submersibles.

Dr. Owen: In the light of the Secretary of State's reply, will he now give the House some indication when we may expect a debate on the Burgoyne report? If the Norwegian commission is likely to take some time, will he take it that we should not consider it reasonable to withhold a debate from the House? We should have the debate before the com-

mission reports, if it is a matter of some months away.

Mr. Howell: This is a bit off the question, but I note the right hon. Gentleman's views. The timing of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am sure that he will note—indeed, I shall call his attention to it—what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Coal Industry

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the capital investment programme of the coal industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): The board's capital expenditure on fixed assets was £636 million last financial year, and is expected to be some £800 million this financial year. Figures for later years are in the latest public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister accept that some projects, for example, the Park colliery in Staffordshire, are vital if we are to retain mining skills in areas such as Cannock Chase? Will he use his considerable influence with the Department of the Environment—now that the Belvoir inquiry is nearing conclusion—to ensure that the inquiry concerning this colliery goes forward forthwith?

Mr. Moore: As I said on 11 February. I understand the reasonable constituency interests of the hon. Gentleman. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of the Environment. However, in the last analysis, the timing of the inquiry is a decision for the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister take into account that, in addition to developing the new coalfields at Selby and Belvoir, many existing pits require a large amount of money for modernisation? Will he ensure that sufficient investment funds are available for that sort of colliery? Further, will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that, when we produce the coal, we sell it? To that end will he refuse to allow coal imports?

Mr. Moore: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is matter of note to the House that an enormous amount of


money is being spent on both old and new pits. An amount in excess of £600 million is a large annual commitment in capital investment.
I think that the whole House would join me in commending the industry's recent success. It would be appropriate for me to draw attention to the outstanding safety record last year, which showed the lowest death rate in the history of the coal industry. That, together with the increase in productivity, is to be commended.

Brandt Commission Report (International Energy Strategy)

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made of the recommendation in the Brandt commission report for an international energy strategy.

Mr. David Howell: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made clear during the debate on the Brandt commission report on 28th March, the Government are studying the report, including the recommendations for an international energy strategy, with great care.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he tell the House when he expects to reach conclusions on those recommendations that have a bearing on his Department? Does he support the idea of a global energy research centre run under the auspices of the United Nations? Is he in a position to say what progress he is making with his energy conservation policies?

Mr. Howell: The report took two years to put together. There has been a preliminary debate. It will take some time to reach conclusions on the variety of suggestions contained in the report. In some areas the report is couched in a degree of generality. Following its completion, there have been many developments in world oil markets, and arrangements are moving on.
I welcome the stress that the report places on the need to reduce dependence on oil—which is the other side of the coin of alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear—and on increased conservation. I welcome its emphasis on the need for fuller international discussion of energy matters, although much is happen-

ing in that area. We are trying to develop bilateral and multilateral talks with those OPEC countries that can act together in a way which will enable us to carry forward constructive discussions. All these matters are being examined. At the same time developments are taking place in parallel with our examination of the Brandt report.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it be unfair to suggest that on 28 March the comparatively junior Minister who answered the debate on Brandt gave the impression that the Government wished to put the report into a pigeon hole and forget about many of its recommendations? Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is an unfair suggestion.
Are we discussing the global energy research centre with our European colleagues? After all, there is a foundation of experience at TSPA and elsewhere.

Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was unfair. The global research centre is one of a number of suggestions included in the report and which needs further consideration. Things are moving so fast on the world oil scene, and the impact on the developing countries of changing oil prices is so rapid, that we cannot afford to wait for the full unfolding of global conferences and massive committees. We must move ahead as quickly as possible with some practical tasks in concert with a number of other countries, including oil-producing countries. That does not mean that we cannot learn from the Brandt report, and draw from its constructive parts. However, we cannot wait and ignore the fact that the world oil and economic scenes are changing at a rapid pace and require rapid response.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that a practical action for the Government would be to put far greater resources into renewable sources of energy, such as wave and solar power, which avoid many of the difficulties posed by oil and nuclear power?

Mr. Howell: Many resources in terms of brain power and research are being put into renewable sources of energy. However, neither of those technologies has reached the stage of requiring massive development funds that other technologies are now ready to receive. If and


when the economics of these possibilities emerge, and when the calculations show that heavy investment is desirable, the enterprise sector—with the necessary support of Government—will push them forward. To push forward major expenditure, whether in the private or public sectors, before these technologies become economic, would waste and divert funds that should be channelled into more effective means of alternative energy development.

Electricity Supply Industry (Reorganisation)

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he plans to make his proposed statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. David Howell: I am continuing consultations, and hope to make a statement in due course.

Mr. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us would prefer an inquiry, a move away from centralisation—which has been proposed—and provision for independent generation of electricity? Will he take a favourable view of those suggestions?

Mr. Howell: I note my hon. Friend's view on the matter. The central recommendations of the Plowden committee were on the table when the Government came into office. Consideration of the recommendations has formed part of our overall consideration of how we should proceed on electricity reorganisation. We have also considered possible restructuring of the generating boards. I ask my hon. Friend to await my statement on the conclusions that we have reached.

Mr. Palmer: Will the Minister give an assurance that when he is ready to make his statement—which has been longawaited—on the reorganisation of this important basic industry, he will make it from the Dispatch Box and will not use the evasive device of an inspired parliamentary question?

Mr. Howell: The statement will be made in the appropriate form.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what the industry needs to serve the consumer more efficiently is not

more centralisation but far greater regional autonomy?

Mr. Howell: The sentiment reflected in my hon. Friend's question is the right one. Over the years, we have learnt that there are dangers in excessive centralisation. This is not an aid to centralisation. People are seeking organisations on a more manageable and human scale. That thought should be reflected in all major considerations of reorganisation of all major public and national bodies.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that his statement will cause a great deal of disappointment within the electricity industry itself because of the inordinate delay—I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault—in implementing the Plowden committee report, or some alternative policy? Is he aware that the industry is becoming demoralised? Will he make an announcement as quickly as possible?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that matters are as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He was kind enough to say that it was not my fault. Indeed, the question of reorganisation of electricity has been on the table for the past 10 years. It was continuously discussed under successive Governments, reached the point of near decision in the fourth year of any parliament, and then was put off as being too late.
The industry has a perfect right to demand that the uncertainty be ended. I undertook that decisions would be reached around Easter, and that I would make a statement some time after Easter on our conclusions, after appropriate consultations and discussions. That is the process in which I am engaged. I am moving towards a stage where I can make a statement, and I shall certainly do so.

Commercial Fast-breeder Reactor

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete his consideration of the advice which he has received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and others on the development of the commercial fast-breeder reactor.

Mr. Norman Lamont: As I told my hon. Friend in my written answer of


10 March, a statement on fast reactor policy will be made in due course.

Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still widespread public misconception about the fast-breeder reactor? Will he ensure that greater efforts are made to explain to the public that the fast breeder reactor does not breed fast and that, far from increasing stocks of plutonium, it will help to reduce stocks.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the advantages of the fast reactor. It would use the plutonium that is enevitably generated in a country with a thermal programme. Another advantage is that the fast reactor could help to overcome whatever constraints may arise on uranium supplies. The Government are considering those issues carefully. We must consider whether a commercial demonstration fast reactor should be built, and whether there should be international collaboration.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since it will he necessary to use coal more and more for oil-related and chemical purposes in the next few decades, the fast reactor may, ultimately, have a role to play?
As we are dealing with a 15 to 20 year time scale, is it not time to open the debate on the matter?

Mr. Lamont: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. That is one of the reasons why the Government have placed an emphasis on nuclear power, as a replacement for coal. It will play an increasing role in meeting industrial needs and as a chemical feedstock.

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is proposing to take on the Government's nuclear power programme prior to the receipt of the report of the Central Policy Review Staff on the nuclear power stations at Heysham and Torness.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is now taking to make possible the announced expansion of the nuclear power programme, in view of the difficult financial position of the Central Electricity Generat-

ing Board and the cash limits imposed by Government policy.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been achieved in the implementation of the programme of nuclear power construction since his statement of December 1979.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is still committed to the building of the advanced gas-cooled reactors he announced in his statement of 18 December 1979.

Mr. David Howell: As the House knows, the Government have reviewed the proposal to construct new advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations at Heysham and Torness. The generating boards made clear their wish to proceed with the stations, and the Government have decided that this would be right.
The cost of these stations was fully reflected in the public expenditure White Paper—Cmnd. 7841. But in view of the heavy costs of these and other capital projects the Government have urged the CEGB, the SSEB and the other boards to identify economies wherever possible.
Work is in hand on all the measures announced in my statement of 18 December, which provides a framework for the development of the nuclear programme.

Mr. Hooley: Since it has taken 16 years to produce 1½ gigawatts of generating capacity in the present AGR programme, is it not ridiculous to suppose that the Government's new programme is in any way practicable? In the light of the fall in demand for electricity, will not the Government be lumbering the country not simply with one white elephant, but with a whole herd of white elephants?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is generally recognised that while we are not planning a crash programme—a massive programme of nuclear generation capacity increase—we are proposing a steady programme over the coming years which will build up our electricity generation from nuclear sources to a reasonable percentage. Even then, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in reply to an earlier question, the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power which Britain will have by the year 2000 on the plans which I announced before Christmas, will be less than that


which will be available to the French and the Germans in 1985. Since nuclear-generated electricity, on all present experience costs less, the consumer will be the loser if we do not build nuclear.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Secretary of State agree that in practical terms there is a clash between the expansion of the nuclear power programme and the cash limits that the Government are imposing on the electricity supply industry? Is it not a fact that the Cabinet hoped to get out of the dilemma by getting the Central Policy Review Staff to make a decision in favour of postponement until the pressurised water reactor was ready? Will the Secretary of State deny those rumours, if they are rumours?

Mr. Howell: They are rumours. There is no conflict between the cash limit restraints on the electricity industry and the decision to go ahead with the building of these stations. As I have already said, the Government decided that that would be right, and the cost of those stations is fully reflected in the public expenditure White Paper. It makes sense to go ahead with building nuclear power stations and the available technology at present is the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I have explained to the House that it is the Government's objective that we move towards seeking to build a pressurised water reactor in due course. In the meantime we have the opportunity to build nuclear; that is what the boards are to do and they will keep within their cash limits in doing so.

Mr. Rost: Taking into account the huge escalation in costs and the delayed time scale, as well as the unsatisfactory performance of the existing AGR programme, how will the Government monitor the new construction programmes so that they keep within even the unacceptably high costs, and the proposed time scale of six years per station?

Mr. Howell: It has been widely recognised that there is a need to strengthen the nuclear construction capacity. For that reason I announced before Christmas the Government's plans to reorganise

the NNC, and to strengthen it to meet the demands which will fall upon it from building nuclear power stations in the coming years. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the performance has not been good in the past. It is essential that the industry is reorganised, that confidence is given by a steady programme, and that the different roles of the customer and the supplier are clearly defined. Within that broad set of arrangements we can go forward with more economic and efficient building, with tighter control on costs.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State concede that doubt and indecision at Government level in general, and within the Department of Energy in particular, have bedevilled the nuclear industry over the years? Does his announcement mean that the industry can now get on with the job without any further interference from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Howell: My announcement today confirms what the Government also made clear before Chirstmas. We are setitng out a basic programme around which the industry can organise with confidence. No one in the industry expects any such programmes, stretching ahead over many years, to be completely free from uncertainties and questions as time goes on. The pace must be influenced by resource availability and demand. The fundamental point is that we now have the basic programme to give the industry confidence.

Mr. Costain: Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to visit Dungeness B? Will he further explain that the long building programme was due to the experimental work that was carried out? Is he aware that there is an extremely good team working at Dungeness B, whose experience should be used for future stations?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. Despite the unwelcome delays, there is a prospect that these stations will produce electricity highly competitively and economically. That is an indication of the strong economic benefit from nuclear electricity—which is cheaper. Even where there are considerable delays and difficulties, the cheaper quality of that electricity is maintained.

Mr. Mike Thomas: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the nuclear industry and the power plant industry to work when an order is placed one month, and before the month is out the "Think Tank" reviews it, the Prime Minister protests about it, the Treasury argues about it, and his right hon. Friends leak stories to the press about it? How can any industry be organised—Conservative Members are supposed to know about such matters—on that basis? Further, how can the industry operate on the basis of steady ordering when everyone knows that an order scheduled for completion in 1982 will not be completed before 1984–85?

Mr. Howell: The Labour Party and the previous Labour Government know all about uncertainty and change of direction on nuclear power and nuclear ordering. If the hon. Gentleman had a little grace and courtesy he would recognise that there has been a great improvement and that we now have the basis for a steady ordering programme, and for the revival of the British nuclear industry. He should congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that, and he should think back to the poorer performance of his party.

Mr. Skeet: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that the existing AGRs are difficult to complete, and are extremely expensive. Would it not be wiser to cut the Gordian knot and go straight to the PWR now, which is much cheaper than the AGR?

Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend will know, Hinkley B compares favourably with fossil fuel stations, taking all the factors into account. My hon. Friend talks of cutting Gordian knots. The reality is that we have the capacity, technology and opportunity to build AGR stations. I have stated the objective that we should seek to build a PWR, but safety considerations are paramount and there must first be a full and thorough inquiry, which takes time. In the meantime, the CEGB and SSEB should continue building nuclear so that we are not left so far behind our continental competitors in cheap nuclear electricity.

Dr. Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his decision, without which the industry would not

have the steady ordering programme that is vital if it is to be viable throughout the next decade and beyond? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided on the choice for the important appointment of chairman, over which the delay has been too long?
Any power programme must reflect demand. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea about future energy demand, particularly for electricity? Is a fall in demand anticipated, which would result in the building programme being cut back? For example, does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the belief that he can sustain a building programme of one nuclear station a year, as announced in December?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for what I have said. I intend to make a statement about the chairmanship and the new chairman of the NNC shortly. Recent electricity supply industry estimates of demand have been revised downwards to a growth rate of just under 1 per cent. My announcement of nuclear power building before Christmas was based on at least the possibility of an overall energy demand growth of 1 per cent. and an electricity demand growth of less than 1 per cent. On demand grounds alone my announcement before Christmas is still valid. In addition, there is an economic case for building nuclear power stations. The increasing evidence is that electricity from nuclear power is considerably cheaper than from oil—or coal-fired stations, even on present prices, let alone with possible price trends in a dangerous world. Reading the newspapers one is daily aware of the growing threats to oil and gas supplies. There is an urgent need for us to diversify our energy resources, and it makes sense to build nuclear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are becoming lengthy and answers longer still.

Electricity Supplies (Disconnections)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he expects to meet the chairman of the Electricity Council.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I meet the chairman from time to time.

Mr. Janner: When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he try to put an end to the scandal of tenants having their electricity supplies cut off when they have paid the appropriate amount to their landlord, in whose name the account stands, but the landlord defaults in paying over what is necessary to clear the account?

Mr. Lamont: I shall discuss that matter when I next meet the chairman. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the code of practice is also being studied by the PSI, and I have emphasised that we wish to have that matter completed as quickly as possible. Such issues are of great importance.

Gas-gathering System

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a fuller statement on the gas-gathering system for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea.

Mr. Gray: The British Gas Corporation and Mobil North Sea Limited have now sent my right hon. Friend a copy of the report submitted by the study team. My right hon. Friend will make a fuller statement when the report has been considered.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that that reply is again disappointing? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in answer to a previous question the Secretary of State indicated that this was an area where we could, within our own resouces, make significant advnces? Is he delaying the statement so that there can be a depletion policy statement at the same time?

Mr. Gray: There is no question of delaying a statement. This is an important matter, which involves highly technical engineering skills. It would be wrong for the Government to come forward with any decisions without giving the matter the fullest consideration.

Mr. John H. Osborn: What conversations has my hon. Friend had with his opposite numbers in Norway? The IPU conference in Norway has just taken place. Will my hon. Friend accept that exploration in the next few years will occur north of the 62nd parallel? What likelihood is there of a line directly to Emden, cutting out the North Sea?

Mr. Gray: The Norwegian Government were given the opportunity to participate in the survey that has just been completed. We regret that they did not take that opportunity. We are still prepared to discuss these matters with the Norwegian Government. If they indicate that they would like to be a partner in any future line, their proposals will be carefully considered.

Gas Supply (New Industrial Units)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the policy of British Gas in respect of conditions relating to the supplying of gas to new industrial units.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The British Gas Corporation is facing considerable difficulties because of the unprecedented demand for gas. I am satisfied that its longer-term plans should improve the situation.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply, but will he keep the matter under review? Most reasonable people would say that the conditions laid down by British Gas are far too inhibiting and ought to be re-examined, and a greater priority given. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Lamont: We discuss these matters with individual firms and with trade associations representing industries which are particularly adversely affected. My hon. Friend has to recognise that, because of the increase in oil prices of 100 per cent. in 12 months, the demand for gas has absolutely run away. There are more people wanting to have gas than there is gas available, and it is extremely difficult to bring the two together. That is why we have had to make unpopular decisions on pricing. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must keep this under review, especially in regard to the industrial consequences.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Recycled Paper

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he is giving, in the light of the Services Committee's deliberations, to the


availability of recycled paper in the House for those who wish to make use of it.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The Services Committee is always ready to receive suggestions regarding the use of recycled papers for House stationery, provided that the criteria of cost, quality and general suitability can be met. Her Majesty's Stationery Office continues to look for suitable recycled papers and any that it recommends will be carefully considered by the Committee. I regret, however, that limitations on the storage facilities available in the Palace of Westminster preclude stocking a wider choice of ranges of stationery. Other items of stationery used in the House are standard Civil Service quality supplies which contain as much recycled fibre as can practicably be included.

Mr. Dalyell: Is that not a somewhat standard Civil Service answer? Why do we send each other the most ephemeral notes on the best and extremely costly manilla paper? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that even such a small example by the House of Commons would be worth any number of eloquent speeches on conservation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I find it difficult to be eloquent on the subject of stationery. It is in accordance with the dignity of this House that correspondence should be on reasonable paper. We considered using recycled paper for memos, but the suggestion was rejected because it would have been more expensive than the paper being used.

Mr. Rost: Would it not be preferable to "decycle" by reducing the official bumf that circulates around Whitehall, Westminster and the entire nation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thoroughly agree. However, the fault lies not with the stationery, of whatever quality, but with the regrettable invention of the photocopying machine.

Ministers (Public Speeches)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer to a Procedure Committee the rules and practice relating to questions on speeches by Ministers outside Parliament, including junior Ministers.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. This matter would be within the remit of any Procedure Committee established by the House which had the normal broad terms of reference.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no reason why hon. Members should be prevented from questioning in this House speeches made by junior Ministers outside the House when we may question those made outside the House by senior Ministers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In logic there is something to be said for what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. However, if we were guided by logic, none of us would be here. As a matter of practice, the Prime Minister answers for Ministers of Cabinet rank and not for others. I believe that it would be unreasonable to ask my right hon. Friend to answer for more than 100 Ministers.

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASHIRE

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when next he expects to visit the County Palatine of Lancashire.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My next visit will be on 20 May, in attendance on Her Majesty.

Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon Friend take the opportunity of that visit to congratulate Lancashire county council on levying the second lowest rate in the country? Does he draw any political conclusions from that fact?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that that is an interesting fact, but when in attendance on Her Majesty I think one ought to avoid political matters of that kind. I shall be fully occupied with my duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Provisions for the Press

Mr. Cryer: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on provisions for the Press in the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The facilities for the press in the House on which it would


fall to the Services Committee to make recommendations have remained unchanged in the present Parliament, except that 21 seats on the sides of the Upper Reporters' Gallery previously allocated to the overseas press have been transferred to the United Kingdom press. Some minor works to facilitate this change will be undertaken during the Summer Adjournment.

Mr. Cryer: Is not one of the alterations that from 1 April this year the total cost of the press facilities is to be borne by the taxpayer—about £100,000 a year—whereas up to 1 April the press employers contributed something approaching £50,000? When the Government are cutting back on virtually every social service in the country, why are they putting the total cost of press facilities on the taxpayer?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Because we have introduced a reform of our arrangements and, in accordance with the practice followed in other Parliaments, the cost of the wages of catering staff is now borne on the Vote of the House. It was right when making—

Mr. English: No doubt the same practice will be followed by Members of Parliament.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What an extraordinary apparition, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will never get on to the Front Bench in that way.
The press receives a number of services for which no charge is made—rent, rates, electricity, gas and local telephone calls. There was no reason why the catering facilities should not be included. In a referendum on the matter, the members of the Press Gallery supported the proposal by a substantial majority.

Select Committees

Mr. David Price: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), as representing the House of Commons Commission, whether, in considering applications for travel by Select Committees, the Commission will treat travel within European Economic Community as domestic, rather than overseas, travel.

Mr. Hooley: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr.

Bottomley), as representing the House of Commons Commission, what finance will be made available to the Select Committees of the House during 1980–81 to enable them to discharge the duties that the House has entrusted to them.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: These matters are still under consideration by the Commission, in consultation with the Liaison Committee.

Mr. Price: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that most helpful answer. Will he and his colleagues bear in mind that it is both acceptable and necessary that our new Select Committees should be given budgets within which it is reasonable to expect that they should work? It is both unnecessary and unacceptable that distinction should be made as to travel between various parts of the United Kingdom and various parts of the EEC. Whether hon. Members like it or not, we are members of the European Community, and therefore we are as entitled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was called to ask a question. He is now giving information. Perhaps he would come to a conclusion.

Mr. Price: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he and his colleagues on the Commission had taken these important facts on board.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the other Commissioners present, will have noted the point. Consideration will be given to the views of the hon. Member.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the creation of a powerful and coherent Select Committee system is one of the most important reforms that the House has carried out in the past few decades? Will he, give an assurance that the Committee system will be properly financed, and that we shall not in future have any silly squabbles between the House of Commons Commission and the Liaison Committee about the finances necessary for the work of the Select Committees?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall bring the views of my hon. Friend to the notice of the Commission.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the Commission to


arrive at a speedy conclusion on the matter of foreign travel? Is he aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee has in mind some modest examination of matters overseas, and requires to arrive at decisions fairly early in order to do its job?

Mr. Bottomley: There is no need to stress the importance of that matter to me, as a past Commonwealth Secretary. Note will be made of the matter.

Mr. Freud: As it appears to be current policy for hon. Members to travel in luxury and then to exist as paupers, might the reverse be allowed to occur, if an hon. Member so desires?

MEDIA COVERAGE and COMMENT

Mr. John Evans: asked the Paymaster General if he remains satisfied with media coverage and comment on Government policies.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Angus Maude): Yes Sir.

Mr. Evans: Is the Paymaster General aware that there appears to be widespread dissatisfaction within the Tory Party about his failure to persuade the media to put a better gloss on his Government's appalling policies? Is he further aware that there appears to be a lot of feeling in the Tory Party that he should be replaced by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?

Mr. Maude: I suspect that I have had more contact recently with members of the Tory Party than the hon. Member has, and I assure him that they are in very good heart. They are confident that the Government's message is coming through loud and clear.

Mr. Adley: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) must read one of the newspapers that in the last 12 months have been spreading doom, gloom and despondency? Is he aware that many of us are delighted that, in spite of the prophecies of impending doom that have been made for the past 12 months, we managed to reach Easter without a civil war?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There is no doubt that recent events, including the reaction to the Budget, have shown quite clearly that the

Government's policy message is getting through.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the present state of recent Government publicity.

Mr. Maude: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Atkins: Would my right hon. Friend care to expand a little on the effects of the publicity surrounding the Budget?

Mr. Maude: A great deal of effort was expended by the Treasury and other Departments in letting the media have the facts, as well as giving explanations of the Chancellor's policy. The press reaction and the public reaction, as shown by opinion polls, indicate that it was extremely successful.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Paymaster General consider that the low standing of the public—[Interruption]— of the Government—[Interruption.] Does the Paymaster General consider that the low standing of the public in the Government's esteem is due to the Government's failures of communication?

Mr. Maude: Does the hon. Member really mean that the public are held in low esteem by the Government?

Mr. Maclennan: Yes.

Mr. Maude: Then all I can say is that the hon. Member seems to be a great deal more confused than the public.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have far more respect for the public and their views than many Labour Members? Does he also agree that one of his priorities will be to stand up to the great, mighty power of the departmental information officers, who are naturally reluctant to let any part of their empire go to a politically functioning co-ordinating information and publicity organisation?

Mr. Maude: No, Sir. I do not find that that is true of the information sections of Government Departments. They are clear that their job is to provide factual information and explanations to the media, and to provide a service to the media. This they do, in my opinion, extremely effectively. I shall do everything


that I can to help them and encourage them.

Mr. Freud: How much effort went into the Paymaster General's endeavour to inform the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) of his visit to that constituency?

Mr. Maude: I was performing a purely political task on that occasion. I was addressing a political gathering. It is not customary for Ministers to inform hon. Members unless they are going to their constituencies in their official capacity as Ministers.

IRAN

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about Iran.
President Carter has asked the friends and allies of the United States for their help and support in the serious situation over the continued illegal detention of the American hostages in Tehran.
This illegal act by Iran is now in its sixth month. The United States Administration and the American people have exercised remarkable patience and restraint in the face of the greatest provocation. Time and again their reasonable hopes of progress have been dashed. It has become clear that the prospects for the early release of the hostages through diplomatic action have markedly diminished. The United States Administration have put up with the flouting of international law and established diplomatic practice by Iran for several months in the hope of securing the release of the hostages. Naturally they now feel obliged to demonstrate that the continued detention of their people will carry increasing penalties. They understandably expect solidarity from their allies and we, for our part, have been giving and will continue to give them our utmost support.
At an early stage in the crisis we agreed on certain measures in the financial and commercial fields, on which we have been co-operating with the United States. These remain in force. No arms or defence equipment has been sent from this country to Iran since the hostage crisis arose in early November. In December we made a substantial reduction in the size of our embassy in Tehran.
The European Foreign Ministers met in Lisbon last week. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine expressed their solidarity with the United States and the American people and instructed their ambassadors to make an immediate approach to the President of Iran to urge the release of the hostages and to seek precise assurances about the dates and methods by which their release would take place and then to report back in person. Our ambassador, Sir John Graham, is due to arrive in London to report this afternoon.
The Americans have asked us to consider a wide range of measures. These include applying the economic sanctions that the Russians vetoed at the United Nations in January. They also include an eventual break in relations with Iran if there is no progress. It is important that whatever we do should be effective and should be capable of commanding a broad measure of international support.
We are now in close and urgent consultation with our European partners as well as with other friendly countries about how best we can together respond to President Carter's appeal to us to intensify our efforts. When the Foreign Ministers of the EEC meet on Monday of next week, I hope that the necessary decisions will be taken. This, therefore, can be only an interim statement, and a further report will be made to the House after next week's meeting, or sooner if required.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making a statement today about what is becoming an increasingly serious situation. Let it be made absolutely clear from the House, as the Prime Minister has already done, that the holding of these hostages—innocent men and women in the employment of the United States—by the militants in Tehran is a violation of international law, that it is in defiance of an order of the International Court of Justice, and that it ignores the resolution of the United Nations, and, therefore, that there can be no acceptance by us of any situation short of the release of these men and women.
I am glad to learn that there is now a strong proposal for further discussions in the light of the President's message. I do not question the right hon. Lady on whether any time limit has been set for a reply to the message by the President. That is a matter of minor significance against the issues that we have to resolve. What is necessary is solidarity not only between the European countries but between European and like-minded countries and the United States. If there is to be a co-ordination of our tactics, that demands the maximum consultation between us all. It may mean that we shall not be able to follow certain courses that others would like to follow. It is important that we should get the

highest common factor, and that means giving the utmost support to the United States in this matter.
I draw attention to the fact that the United Nations resolution, to which the right hon. Lady and I have referred, called upon the United States and Iran not to resort to military action. That would be no solution. It would give point to the most chilling comment that was made by Chancellor Schmidt over the weekend, when he said that in some respects the present situation is not dissimilar to the situation that existed immeditely prior to Sarajevo, when no one wanted war but we clriften into it. If we are to avoid that—and we must avoid it—it is necessary that there should be the maximum co-ordination between European countries, like-minded countries and the United States.
If the Foreign Ministers are unable to come to a satisfactory agreement next Monday, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will not rule out the opportunity for the Heads of Government to take it up a week later and for there to be a summit conference at an even higher level, involving, if necessary, the President of the United States.
I ask the right hon. Lady to pursue the course that she seems to be pursuing at present. We should not be seen, as apparently we are at present, to be reacting to the situation. There should be a positive policy agreed between us. We should decide on the limits of action economically and diplomatically. This should be made known clearly to the United States and to all those who are concerned. I hope that the right hon. Lady's statement and other comments that come from the House this afternoon will reassure the American people and the American Administration, which are under a very great strain, that we fully understand and comprehend the strain and frustration that they feel and that we shall do our best to remove them.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition. Our objective is to show our support for the American people and President Carter and to do everything possible to secure the release of the hostages. It is plain that, so far, diplomatic action has not worked. Therefore, after his hopes have been dashed on a number of occasions,


the President feels that we must now go a stage further with political and economic action, and we are anxious to get maximum international support for that.
We have not been set a date by which our American friends want us to act. Any guidelines that have been given have been given by reference to events in Iran, and have given a reasonable period for any new measures to take effect. The Americans have made clear that they do not contemplate the use of force now. I believe that asking us to go further in political and economic matters and measures is designed to avoid anything in that regard. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that any contemplation of that would be an extremely serious step.
I hope that the Foreign Ministers will be able to reach a decision next Monday. There will, of course, be urgent consultations in the meantime. The European summit is on the following Monday. We would not rule out any steps for further consultation designed to achieve the objective, which is twofold, namely, our support for the American people and the release of the hostages.

Mr. David Steel: I agree with the attitude that the Prime Minister has adopted, but does she not agree that it is unfortunate that President Carter has had to ask the European countries to intensify their efforts in this matter? Does she not also agree that diplomatic relations cannot be maintained without absolute acceptance of the principle of diplomatic immunity and that if we allow this precedent to stand without an adequate response from the international community it will be an open invitation to all dictatorships of the Left or Right to use diplomats as hostages as part of their power struggle?

The Prime Minister: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his comments are a little unjustified. As he knows, there have been a number of diplomatic moves between the United States and Iran, which aroused hopes, first that the hostages would be removed from the custody of the students and placed in the custody of the Government. It was when those moves failed and there did not seem to be any hope of achieving a solution within a reasonable time that President Carter naturally asked his friends to consider

further action. That further request came comparatively recently, and it is our wish to respond to it as definitely and as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Rippon: I welcome the firm and positive note of the interim statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Will she impress upon our European allies—who have for so long, together with us, sheltered under the umbrella of the United States military strength—that they must now be prepared to share the burden as well as the benefits of the alliance?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. A number of us feel that way but now that the United States has asked us to take action we must do our utmost to respond, both because of our friendship and alliance with her and because of the appalling situation in which diplomats, after some six months, are still hostages in Iran.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady make it perfectly clear that the Foreign Ministers of the EEC collectively have no right or power whatsoever to issue instructions to ambassadors, that the communiqué to that effect was wrongly phrased, and that this right rests wholly with national Governments?

The Prime Minister: Indeed, but they can agree at a meeting that each of them will issue instructions to ambassadors, and that, in fact, is what they did.

Mr. Whitney: I note the measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the totality of the collective Western response to the threat posed to international peace and security by the events in Iran and Afghanistan has been inadequate and unsatisfactory so far? Will she therefore consider the possibility of proposing an urgent and immediate date for a small summit between the President of the United States and, perhaps, four or five representatives of Western nations, because the need now is for speedy and positive action?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, the statement that I made was about Iran in particular. As he knows, we have been extremely active in urging a more definite


and more co-ordinated response in relation to Afghanistan. Certainly this Government have not been backward in giving a lead about what we should do in the light of events in Afghanistan. On my hon. Friend's other point, regarding a smaller summit, we meet in Venice in June for what is normally called an economic summit. I believe that all of us feel that at this time we really must consider world events, especially on the first day. Of course, if that is not soon enough I do not think that any of us would rule out the possibility of an earlier meeting.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister answer a question that was put to President Carter by Mr. Fred Emery last night and was not answered? Will not any kind of economic blockade tend to throw the Iranians into dependence on the Russians?

The Prime Minister: That is one factor which all of us have to take into consideration, but there are also other factors. The patience of the United States in this very difficult situation is not inexhaustible, and diplomatic action has so far not succeeded even in transferring the hostages from the control of the students into the control of the Government. Therefore, we have to consider what next to do, and beyond that the next step must be either political or economic action, or both.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not the case that some time ago President Carter proposed precisely the measures that he is now taking, and is asking his allies to take, but desisted from applying them because his allies asked him not to, so that the Waldheim initiative could first be attempted? In those circumstances, may I impress upon my right hon. Friend—either at the summit in Venice or before —to do what she can to strengthen the position of Mr. Bani-Sadr, who is the best hope in these circumstances, and to demonstrate to the United States that we stand together in this matter, because apart we shall undoubtedly fail?

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that after the United Nations resolution was vetoed it was hoped that diplomatic inititives could secure some furtherance of the cause of the hostages and secure their release. As my lion. Friend knows, the Waldheim commission was not successful and there was the later initiative, which we expected to produce something but

which was suddenly dashed. That being so, we must return to consider the steps for which many of us voted in the Security Council on the United Nations resolution that was vetoed. I agree with my hon. Friend that there have been people in the Government in Iran who seem to have been very anxious to help, believing, as they do, that to keep hostages is no way to conduct international relations. They do not wish to flout international law, but their hands have not been totally free. I also agree that we must show solidarity with the United States in this matter.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Referring to the answer that the Prime Minister has just given, should not British advice to the Americans be based upon a return to the Security Council, because is it not a fact that conditions have now changed and the Americans are unable to concede the original demand of the Iranians which was the return of the Shah to Iran? Is there not also a further development, in the sense that the Shah could now either ask for political asylum or be faced with extradition proceedings, both of which courses would be very embarrassing if this Government, together with the Americans, now tried to mobilise world opinion behind sanctions of the kind about which the Prime Minister is now talking?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time that resolution went before the Security Council international law was being flouted by the Government of Iran and yet Russia used the veto in circumstances that surprised many of us, because we thought that Russia, too, was concerned to see that international law was observed with regard to her diplomats and diplomats all over the world. I believe that the United States feels that it has gone to every international forum, and in a way it has achieved a result in its favour in every international forum, but so far it has had no effect on securing the release of the hostages or even their custody under the Government of Iran. Therefore, I believe that the United States is justified in feeling that further measures are now necessary.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side.

Mr. David Price: In view of the highly religious nature of the Iranian revolution, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting someone of very high standing within Islam to act as an emissary to the Ayatollah Khomeini before we resort to sanctions? As she will appreciate, Waldheim does not stand high in the Islamic pecking order.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that many of the Islamic nations that are non-aligned voted in another connection against Afghanistan. However, I think that a number of people within Islam have been active in this matter and have not yet secured any result. Therefore, I do not think that it would be wise to wait for something else to fail.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is extremely important that she does everything possible to meet the reasonable demands of the President of the United States in the action that he proposes to take against international terrorists, not least so as to avoid the likelihood of the United States feeling compelled to take military action? As an interim measure, will she consider expelling from this country those Iranian nationals who are currently undergoing military training here?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his comments. There are very few Iranian nationals concerned. I think that the number is about 28 or 30. That is a factor that we shall have to consider.

Mr. McCrindle: In the emotional circumstances of a religious revolution, is it not just conceivable that economic and political sanctions might prove counter-productive? In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend carefully note the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price)? If a leading member of Islam is not to be called upon to mediate, will she take note of the initiative by His Holiness the Pope and, remembering that we are dealing here with a religious aspect, perhaps suggest that before the politicians go too far there should be an initiative on a basis such as that?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be wrong to assume that members of Islam have not been active, because

naturally they are very concerned that anyone should conclude that what is happening is characteristic of Islam. Many prominent Islamic people would say that it is not.
With regard to my hon. Friend's question whether economic sanctions would be counter-productive, there are a number of people who are very doubtful about sanctions, but the fact is that all other methods have so far failed, and it would seem that this is the only possible next step.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister accept that there is an additional factor in this delicate situation? We all want to see the hostages released as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the fact of the American elections looming quite close could result in unacceptable pressure being placed on the Government to make decisions that might subsequently prove untenable? Will she, therefore, assure us that before decisions are taken she will ask the House for its approval of those decisions?

The Prime Minister: With regard to any possible measure of sanctions, in the absence of a United Nations resolution I believe that we should have to ask the House for the necessary legislative authority. A Government have no powers under international law just to break contracts that are valid in international law, unless there is a mandatory resolution of the United Nations, which automatically becomes embodied in our law, or unless we take specific legal action. Of course, if we were to do so, we would need widespread support from other countries.
There is only one third possibility, which is that some of these things are within the competence of the Community. It may be possible to carry out some of them under Community law, but I think that the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that before any further action on economic sanctions could become effective we would have to come back to the House.

Mr. Haselhurst: All other niceties apart, is it not a fact that if the special relationship is to mean anything, Britain must stand as one with the United States in this deepening crisis, and that failure to do so will have the gravest implications for the Atlantic Alliance, which is the basis of Western European defence?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We also want wide international support. If sanctions are to be effective, they must command wide international support. They cannot be effective if applied by only one or two nations. From that arises the need to consult widely and to take action together.

Mr. Ennals: Does the Prime Minister agree that while there have been some differences about what sort of action should be taken, it should be clearly known and understood in the United States that the House of Commons is absolutely united in condemnation of what has been done by the terrorists in Iran and in the right of the United States' President to come before this House and ask us to co-operate? Secondly, would it not be helpful if further initiatives were taken in those other countries that voted in the United Nations in condemnation of what has happened?

The Prime Minister: We would, of course, expect the President of the United States, in his great difficulty, to ask his friends for their support. In the same circumstances, I believe that we should do the same thing. He is naturally entitled to expect us to respond, as we should be entitled to expect him to respond to us. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this matter. I am very grateful to him for making it perfectly clear that we are so.

GIBRALTAR

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on Gibraltar.
I am pleased to report that the Spanish Foreign Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend reached agreement on 10 April on the re-establishment of direct communications between Spain and Gibraltar. It is envisaged that the practical preparations will be completed not later than 1 June. This will then allow the agreement to be speedily implemented. A copy of the joint AngloSpanish statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
This is a very important step, and one I am sure that the House will wish to welcome, though I should emphasise that this is only the beginning of what is likely to be a very long process. The Spanish decision represents another milestone for democratic Spain, and the Government pay tribute to Senor Oreja's statesmanship and the good will which he has shown in his approach to this problem. Our agreement makes a significant contribution towards the strengthening of the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Spain, to whose early membership of the European Community we look forward.
It is also a move of great significance for the people of Gibraltar, who have been cut off from Spain for 11 years. My right hon. and noble Friend and I discussed the implications with the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition in London earlier today.
I should like to stress that the AngloSpanish statement reaffirms the Government's commitment never to enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

Mr. Shore: The House will welcome the removal of restrictions on movements and the opening of the border between Gibraltar and Spain, all the more so since the 11-year siege of Gibraltar was wholly unjustified from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly stated—we welcome this, too—the Government's commitment, as he puts it,


never to enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That is absolutely right.
I have only two questions to put. The communiqué of 10 April referred to
the forthcoming negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between Spain and Britain on Gibraltar.
Can the Lord Privy Seal say what subjects are to be covered in these negotiations or talks? Will he confirm that they will not include the question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about re-emphasising the Government's firm commitment which I stated at the end of my statement.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the communiqué that was issued at the end of my right hon. and noble Friend's conversations with Senor Oreja, we agreed to talk about anything. It is a part of the agreement that nothing is barred. We shall discuss anything. But, as I say, that must be read in the context of our firm commitment to the people of Gibraltar which I mentioned earlier.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Spaniards are still insisting that, under the correct interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht, any change in the status of Gibraltar would necessarily involve a reversion to Spanish sovereignty? Will he say whether Her Majesty's Government accept or reject that as a matter of law and as being outwith the spirit of the age?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, the Spanish Government stated in the agreed text that they believed that Gibraltar was part of the territorial integrity of Spain. As I have said, we do not take that view. Our position is as I have stated—that there can be no change in the position of Gibraltar without the freely and democratically stated wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the Lord Privy Seal's statement, particularly the last paragraph. Can he say anything about

lifting restrictions on flight paths into Gibraltar? I understand that those restrictions are still in force. Can he comment on employment in the dockyards? I understand that Moroccans have now replaced Spaniards. Is that subject still open for discussion, and what is the likely outcome?

Sir I. Gilmour: The restrictions on flight paths were referred to in the statement and should come to an end. That will be beneficial to anyone flying into or out of Gibraltar. The dockyards will be discussed in the negotiations. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, Spanish workers have been replaced by Moroccan workers. However, future employment is a matter for commercial negotiation.

Mr. Rippon: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that he has fully answered the question put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about the effect of the Treaty of Utrecht. Do the Government agree that, although there is no question of unilaterally abrogating British sovereignty, or doing anything without the approval of the people of Gibraltar, if we were to leave Gibraltar for any reason the sovereignty of the island would revert to Spain?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot agree with my right lion, and learned Friend. We have no intention of leaving Gibraltar and therefore the question does not arise. As I have said, any change in the constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar—that means any giving up of British sovereignty over Gibraltar—can take place only after the free and democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar have been stated.

Dr. Gilbert: As one of the proposals mooted in the past has been that there should be joint administration with Spain of the dockyard and airfield, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that such proposals would be far easier to implement if Spain were to become a member of NATO? Will he confirm also that the considerations applying to those two sets of installations are totally different?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The question of Spanish membership of NATO is entirely


a matter for Spain and is some way in the future.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What action is my right hon. Friend taking in his negotiations with Spain to safeguard the interests of the many Moroccan workers who have provided indispensable support for the Gibraltarian economy for 10 years and who may now have no employment in Morocco? Will he bear their interests in mind in return for the valuable service that they have performed for the economy of Gibraltar and its territorial integrity?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Moroccan workers have played during the past few years an indispensable part in the preservation of Gibraltar. Their interests will be safeguarded. As I have already said, all these issues are for future discussion by the Gibraltarians. I should make plain that in all future negotiations the Gibraltarians will be represented.

Mr. English: if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can fob off his right hon. and learned Friends as he has done, he is wrong. They are right. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish, or at least put in the Library, the legal case made on behalf of the British Government answering that put by a previous Spanish Government? For example, a previous Spanish Government pointed out that by admitting Jews to Gibraltar we had broken the express provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht. That might be something that we would all wish to do. However, the point needs answering and no answer has yet been given. Will the right hon. Gentleman do that?

Sir I. Gilmour: At present, I do not think so. It is not an issue that is being put forward in the present negotiations. I do not see any great advantage in answering such points if they are not being put forward. If they are put forward, we shall answer them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have stood throughout questions on the statement, if they will co-operate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the light of my right hon. Friend's announcement, will he state that there is no excuse for the

inordinately high air fares which impede the tourist development of the Rock? As has been stated, there is British sovereignty and Spanish sovereignty and a third option called "independence". Will my right hon. Friend categorically state his position?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have already stated my position. British sovereignty will not be altered without the expressly and democratically stated wish of Gibraltarians. Surely that is as clear as it can be. I cannot go any further. The inordinately high air fares to Gibraltar are a subject for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I hope that one of the beneficial results of the agreement will be that such fares will come down.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we quite sure that there is no misunderstanding in the minds of those negotiating on the Spanish side? Are they clear that we have no intention of leaving, according to the terms of the Lord Privy Seal's statement? A second and lesser question is whether anything has yet been said about the possibilities of British Service men being allowed to travel in southern Spain when stationed on the Rock.

Sir I. Gilmour: Nothing has yet been said as regards the second question. As regards the first, if the hon. Gentleman reads the joint declaration he will sec the answer.

Mr. Shersby: Do the Government intend to propose to the Spanish Government that a referendum should take place to determine the wishes of the people of Gibraltar concerning their future status?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend will know, a referendum took place some time ago. To have another referendum now would be to rush things. There is a long way to go before any question of another referendum arises.

Mr. Stanbrook: Since the previous position of the Spanish Government was understood to be that restrictions would not be lifted until there had been an agreement to enter into meaningful discussions and negotiations about sovereignty, can my right hon. Friend say whether that condition has been fulfilled?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have already told the House that, as was made clear in the joint Anglo-Spanish statement, which my hon.


Friend will have read, we have agreed to discuss everything. That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to agree to. We have agreed to do so in the context, which I have stated many times, of the 1969 declaration.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the atmosphere in which the discussions will take place will be enhanced because the Spanish Government have not only applied to join the EEC but have stated their intention to join the NATO Alliance? If he agrees, will he, to enhance the atmosphere of those talks, go further by stating that were Gibraltarians to choose to change their status and to move closer to Spain the British Government would not stand in their way? Will he also confirm the point already made, that under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht it is not possible for Gibraltar to resort to independence and that were the United Kingdom to withdraw Gibraltar would automatically become subject to Spain's sovereignty?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot continue to repeat my remarks or make them any more meaningful. I have already said that we have no intention of withdrawing, and therefore the question does not arise.
Of course we should welcome any decision by Spain to join NATO. However, that is some years ahead and is an issue for Spain, and not us, to decide.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Was not one of the contributory factors to this most welcome advance the sturdy conduct of the Gibraltarian people under the leadership of their Chief Minister? Does not Gibraltar now require a period of calm and reflection during which confidence can be re-established and relationships cemented between Spain and Gibraltar?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree with those remarks, particularly those concerning the leadership given to Gibraltar by the Chief Minister. It is natural that after 11 years of blockade and isolation there should be some apprehension in Gibraltar about the future. It is therefore right and proper to have a period of calmness.

Mr. McQuarrie: I welcome the decision to have talks. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's attention will have

been drawn to the large demonstration in Gibraltar expressing considerable opposition to the decision to have the talks. Having experienced this for six years, I can tell my right hon. Friend that an emotiveness has been created in Gibraltar. I welcome my right hon. Friend's view that there should be a period of calm before negotiations are started. I also welcome the fact that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar will be present during the negotiations because that will give the Gibraltarians an opportunity to see that both sides are considered. Is my right hon. Friend aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask his question. I have extended the time allowed in order to permit him to ask his question. We want to move on at some stage.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the joint communiqué by the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition issued on 12 April? It said:
We further reiterate the position of the people of Gibraltar that for their part they are opposed to any negotiations on sovereignty over Gibraltar, a view expressed in a unanimous resolution of the House of Assembly in November 1977.

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were at the Foreign Office today and the Foreign Secretary and I had talks with them. They seemed to be fully satisfied by what we said. There can be no possible objection to our agreeing to discuss everything with Spain. That must be right, provided that it is recognised that it is in the context of the 1969 declaration. That is our firm position.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the President of the Council of Ministers, when answering a question that I put to him, said that the British Government, during negotiations on the Spanish application to join the Common Market, had never raised the issue of sovereignty over the Rock of Gibraltar? Is it not time that the issue was raised? Should not the Government spell out to the Council of Ministers and to Europe where the British Government stand?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is slightly behind events. The agreement


appears to make his suggestion unnecessary.

Mr. Shore: One aspect of the scope of negotiations worries me. Given the clear statements by the Spanish and British Governments, there can be no merit or benefit in picking over that particular sore in the talks. Will the Lord Privy Seal therefore do his utmost to steer away from the sovereignty issue and discuss such important and practical issues as the flight path and other matters which are of concern to the people of Gibraltar?

Sir I. Gilmour: I think that the right hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands. I hope that issues such as the flight path will be agreed before negotiations start. It must be right, in the context of the agreement, to agree to the Spaniards raising any matter that they wish. That is normal. We have discussed that with the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition today. They have said that they are satisfied. It is unduly suspicious of the right hon. Gentleman to object to the terms of the agreement.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the security situation in Northern Ireland with the murder of three police officers and the serious wounding of others by the Provisional IRA and the unofficial strike at the Royal Victoria hospital, aimed at getting the troops out of the hospital complex and resulting in attacks on hospital workers and serious risk to critically ill patients.
The House should be aware of the serious situation that has arisen in Northern Ireland since the House went into recess. The House is the only place where Northern Ireland elected representatives can discuss these matters. In view of the deplorable absence of a ministerial statement we should have an emergency debate.
When the House was going into recess a police officer, Constable Stokes, was blown up in his car by the type of bomb that killed our much lamented colleague, Mr. Airey Neave. That constable was seriously injured. On Good Friday a

Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve constable, one of my constituents, Bernard Montgomery, aged 33, who was married, with a 4-year-old son, was shot in the back and murdered by IRA thugs.
Just after the holiday weekend another young police officer, who had been one of my constituents for almost all his life—RUC Constable Stephen Magill, aged 24, who had been married for only four months—was murdered in an IRA ambush in which three of his colleagues were injured. On Friday RUC Reserve Constable Fred Wilson, aged 43, married with two children, was murdered by the IRA in the city centre. Mr. Fred Wilson was well known as an able and efficient Housing Executive administrator. My colleagues who represent Belfast constituencies are absent, because they are attending his funeral. Mr. Wilson was held in high esteem by all sections of the community as an officer of the Housing Executive who sought to serve the whole community impartially.
A new ingredient has entered the security situation in Northern Ireland—the unofficial strike in progress at the Royal Victoria hospital. The National Union of Public Employees has officially condemned the strike, and rightly. The aim is to have the troops removed from the hospital complex. The troops guard those who have been injured by terrorists and prevent their being further attacked. They also guard terrorists injured while being captured by security forces.
The strike is orchestrated by the Provisional IRA. Many sinister incidents have taken place. Attacks have been made on workers preparing food for patients. Food has been thrown on the floor and a porter attacked and seized by the throat by those involved in the unofficial protest. A cardiac ambulance has had difficulty in taking a critically ill patient to the hospital. Grave difficulties are being experienced in supplying food to patients. The situation is highly dangerous and there is a build up of resentment. The House should have the opportunity to debate the issues as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he


thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the security situation in Northern Ireland with the murder of three police officers and the serious wounding of others by the Provisional IRA, and the unofficial strike at the Royal Victoria hospital, aimed at getting the troops out of the hospital complex and resulting in attacks on hospital workers and serious risk to critically ill patients.
The House will have listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman, who has brought to our attention once again the serious situation in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, I do not decide whether this matter should be debated. I merely decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow night as an emergency debate.
As the House also knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. After listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By the leave of the House, I will put together the eight

Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bangladesh) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Egpyt) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) (No. 1) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) (No. 2) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sri Lanka) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritance and on Gifts) (Netherlands) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committtee on Statutory Instrument, &amp;c.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. For the Second Reading of this Bill, I propose to apply the 10-minute rule from 7 pm until 9 pm. This rule has already worked well in enabling a larger number of hon. Members to be called.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before speaking about the Bill itself, I should perhaps first explain why, on this occasion, we do not have a money resolution before us at the time of Second Reading. Unfortunately, due to the short time between the Bill's coming from another place and the Easter Recess, it proved impossible to table the money resolution in time for this debate. It is, however, being tabled today and will be proceeded with as soon as possible and in good time before clauses come up for debate at later stages.
The Bill proposes wide-ranging and fundamental reforms of the Scottish criminal justice system. Its 81 clauses and 8 schedules represent the most substantial reform of Scottish criminal procedure, evidence and treatment of offenders since 1963. Throughout the intervening years a great deal of work has been carried out by a number of Scottish departmental committees of inquiry under the auspices of Governments of both parties. The distinguished men and women who served on these committees spent much time and labour on their deliberations in the interests of public policy. We are all very much in their debt. I am glad that we have been able to adopt and put forward in this Bill so many of their recommendations.
The majority of the measures proposed in the Bill are drawn from the recommendations of the committee that sat under the chairmanship of the late Lord Thomson during much of the past decade. Its first and third reports, published in 1972 and 1977 respectively, proposed

radical reforms of the procedure on criminal appeals in Scotland. Its second report, published in 1975, ranged widely over the field of criminal procedure generally.
The Bill is also designed to give effect to recommendations made in the Scottish Council on Crime's report on fines, of 1974, and its general memorandum of 1975, which commented on the problem of crime in Scotland in general; the Dunpark report, of 1977, which considered compensation by the offender to the victim; the 1977 report of the working group on football crowd behaviour, chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) on the worrying problem of football crowd behaviour; and the Bryden report on identification procedure, published in 1978.
This is a long and detailed Bill, of great importance. I cannot today cover every detail in an opening speech. If, therefore, I spend much of my time on part I and less on the other parts of the Bill, it is not because they are unimportant but because it seems that the question of police powers has aroused most controversy in public debate, in the media, and in another place.
Many of the arguments, so far adduced in criticism of the Bill are very wide of the mark. I cannot help thinking that a very large proportion of those who have violently condemned this Bill have either never read it at all or have completely failed to understand it or to compare it with present practice both north and south of the border.
To read some of the hysterical statements made, one would never think that a great number of that Bill's provisions—40 out of 81 clauses—were already introduced and, indeed, nearly passed by the previous Government. Only a very welcome general election prevented its passage last year. Nor would one imagine that most of the Bill's provisions are the result of years of work by some very distinguished departmental committees, whose views are certainly not partisan and whose legal expertise is beyond question.
Before commenting on the detailed provisions in part I, I make one general point. The maintenance of law and order is of prime interest to all of us and is of


particular need to the weaker and underprivileged sections of the population. Those who live in good housing in good areas of town or country can afford to the orise about crime and criminology. It is often not to them a real daily terror or even, on occasions, a matter of life and death. They suffer grievously from the growing crime rate in our cities and housing schemes. We shall fail them in a real way if we fail to equip the forces of law and order with every reasonable means that we can devise to tilt the balance against the criminal and in favour of his victim and of innocent people generally.
I hope that the House will be prepared to look at the new police powers against this background.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend says. I note that a number of additional police powers are provided in the Bill in respect of search for and control of alcohol in coaches and at sports grounds. If, as I agree with my right hon. Friend, these powers are necessary and effective, why are they introduced for Scotland and not for the United Kingdom as a whole, in so far as they are additional to powers that already exist south of the border?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. He has great knowledge of the matter. He will understand that a decision whether to extend these powers to England, Wales or Northern Ireland is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friends, who, I am sure, will note what my hon. Friend says. My hon. Friend's remarks outline the differences between Scotland and England and the direction of those differences, which are relevant to the consideration of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Younger: It is not my responsibility to deal with England.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. To which hon. Member is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Younger: To the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In order to allay the anxiety of English Members, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Bill will not be a precedent for England and that the Cabinet will not argue that because these changes have taken place in Scotland it is right that they should be introduced into England when the Royal Commission on criminal procedure reports later in the year?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman, I know, sometimes listens to Scottish debates. We welcome his presence. We in Scotland regard ourselves as having a different legal system from that of England. We are proud of that. We deal with matters in our own way. I do not preclude what my right hon. Friends may or may not wish to do in other parts of the United Kingdom, nor would I expect them to preclude what I might wish to do, with the approval of the House, north of the border.

Mr. Christopher Price: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Royal Commission on criminal procedure in England has already undertaken a great deal of research, some of which is as relevant to Scotland as it is to England. Was that research made available to the Government before the drafting of the Bill, or is the Bill going ahead irrespective of the work done by the Royal Commission?

Mr. Younger: With respect, the Royal Commission is dealing with matters not within Scotland. We in Scotland have had a great deal of work and research done by a large number of committees over many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am churlish if I say that, having done that work, we feel that we are entitled to proceed in our own way. That is what we intend to do, with the approval of the House.
I hope that the House will be prepared to look at the police powers fairly and against a fair background. Let us by all means ensure that there is full protection for the innocent, so that these powers either do not affect them at all or, if they do, do so in a way that minimises any inconvenience and ensures no hardship or injustice.
If, in the process, this makes life more difficult for the criminal, so much the better. If it reduces the number of wrongdoers who get away with it, surely that


is good news for us all. I hope that the House will say so, too. Is it not, therefore, very much in the public interest that both police and suspects should know where they stand? If police need to detain and question, they should have proper laws within which to do so. If criminal suspects are to be liable to such detention and questioning, surely they should benefit from knowing what their rights are and, indeed, should be better able to seek a remedy if the powers are abused and they feel they have a legitimate grievance.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Younger: I really must continue. I apologise, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind. Many of my colleagues wish to take part in the debate, and I think that I had better move on, because these speeches get very long if one is constantly interrupted.
So far, the debate has concentrated on part I relating to the police powers. Some of the less well-informed critics of that part of the Bill have seen in it an attempt by the Government to pre-empt the work of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, which is expected to report within the next year. If I may say so, that criticism is quite unjustified. Of course, the Royal Commission is looking at questions in English law similar to those facing the Thomson committee in Scots law. However, the basic differences in the legal system necessarily imply a difference in the remedies, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission, when they emerge, will require to be examined on their merits and in their proper context, as do the recommendations which form the basis of this Bill.
There is one fundamental difference which is particularly significant. In Scotland, apart from certain limited statutory exceptions, there exists no power for the police to arrest a suspect for questioning before charge, and once a person is charged answers to questions will be inadmissible at his trial. In England, the police may arrest someone before they are in a position to charge him, and hold him in custody, even in minor cases, for up to 24 hours for questioning before he is charged. The power of detention proposed in clause 2 is not dissimilar, except that a person detained under clause 2 will have the right of release

from detention after a maximum of six hours.
I mention that to illustrate the difference between the two legal systems. The amazement of most Scots lawyers at various aspects of the English legal system is matched only by that of English lawyers at ours. The question, therefore, to be asked of the provisions of the Bill is"Are they right for Scotland?" [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] It is our contention that they are. I am not alone in that view—.—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but I must proceed. I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed an article in The Sunday Times only yesterday, which quotes a person who is by no means likely to be regarded as someone to the Right in these matters, Professor Michael Zander. The article states:
Ironically, the liberally inclined Michael Zander, professor of law at the London School of Economics, points out that the English police can—and frequently do—hold people without charge or arrest 'sometimes for days on end. The measures in this Bill may be an extension of police powers in Scotland, but it they were introduced into England there would be a serious curtailment of police powers'.
I hope that that puts the matter into perspective.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it plain that he is not giving way.

Mr. Younger: I have been very kind and courteous to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will forgive me if I continue.
I turn now to the individual provisions of part I. Clause 1 empowers a constable to require a person whom he reasonably suspects of committing an offence to give his name and address, to ask that person for an explanation of the circumstances giving rise to suspicion and to require him to remain while his name and address are verified, provided that that can be done quickly. The clause also allows a policeman to require a person who may be a witness to an offence to give his name and address. As a result of an amendment which was agreed in another place, such a person is not obliged to remain with the police while they verify the name and address.


A statutory requirement is, regrettably, necessary in this case because there are those who do not feel the force of the moral obligation, which all citizens owe to society, to assist the police when they are in a position to do so. As it stands, the clause imposes the minimum effective requirement on such people.
Clause 2, like clause 1, derives from the recommendations of the Thomson committee. It considered the present position under Scots law where, as it put it, the police
are able to carry out their functions only because some persons whom they detain without warrant fail, through ignorance or fear of authority, to exercise their rights.
I am sure that that quotation will be familiar to many hon. Members.
The committee felt that, though perfectly legal, it was undesirable that the police should have to rely on the present informal methods of persuasion and perhaps, on occasions, bluff, and it recommended that the position should be regularised and set out in statute so that each party might have a clear understanding of his rights and obligations in this very sensitive area. Clause 2, therefore, provides that a police officer may detain a person at a police station or elsewhere if, but only if, he has reasonable grounds to suspect that person of an offence punishable by imprisonment.
The suspect may be detained only for a maximum of six hours or until he is cleared or arrested, whichever is the shorter time. As a result of another amendment agreed in another place, he cannot thereafter be detained again on the same grounds of suspicion or on any grounds arising out of the same circumstances. That is an important safeguard for the suspect, which was not included in the Labour Government's Bill but is in this one. The clause also contains further safeguards for the suspect, in that it requires the police to inform him of the reason for his detention and to keep a record of the time, place and purpose of the detention. The clause, therefore, provides a very limited and circumscribed power for the police to hold someone in legal custody and to question him. That a similar but wider power already exists in England suggests that it is not the intolerable assault on

civil liberties that some people have suggested.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman began his comments by saying how much work had been undertaken to get this matter right for Scotland. How does he explain that the chief merits which he has so far adduced for the Bill have been due to amendments passed in another place?

Mr. Younger: I certainly do not take the view that any particular part of the legislative process has a monopoly of wisdom in this matter. I shall listen very carefully to what is said in this House and even to the hon. Gentleman himself. If he produces any good suggestions, we shall, of course, look at them. I do not think that we should regard this as a sterile process resulting from one piece of advice with no change taking place thereafter. I certainly believe that my noble Friends dealt with the Bill with great skill, as a result of which it has been changed and improved in various ways.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but my speech will he much too long if I give way too often. I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 3 provides a person who is detained under clause 2 with a right to have a solicitor and another person informed of his detention. As a general rule, such information must be sent at once. However, the Thomson committee recognised that there will be occasions—particularly in the more serious cases—where the very fact of a person's detention may serve to "tip off" his accomplices, and delay in sending intimation of detention would be justified in such cases. The clause allows for such delay, but the permissible delay is limited to that necessary in the interest of the investigation, or of the prevention of crime, or of the apprehension of offenders.
Clause 4 deals with the dangerous practice of carrying knives or other weapons which leads to so many serious crimes of violence in Scotland. While the practice is illegal under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the police have no power at present to stop and search suspected carriers on reasonable suspicion of the offence. The


clause, which is based on a recommendation of the Scottish Council on Crime, creates such a power. Very often, those who carry a knife or other weapon do so with no real intention of using it, but then, when they become involved in a fight, they find they have—sometimes without realising it until too late—seriously injured or even murdered somebody against whom they had no real grudge. Of course, this clause will not prevent certain groups of young people from involving themselves in acts of violence, but the judicious exercise by the police of this new power may forestall the most serious consequences of some at least of these acts, and it should be welcomed on that basis if on no other.
It has been suggested that to give the police the powers contained in part I generally will damage their relationship with the community. I do not believe that view to be justified.

Mr. Donald Dewar: rose—

Mr. Younger: I shall give way in a minute. Nobody is more aware of the need for good police-public relationships than the Scottish police force. The Scottish police have shown a sensible restraint in the exercise of their substantial existing powers, which, incidentally, include the power to search for various items such as dangerous drugs. I am confident that they will use these new powers with similar moderation. Indeed, their high standing with the community should be enhanced by these powers, which will enable them to be more effective in protecting the ordinary citizen from crime.

Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me over a serious difficulty? Will he explain, by way of a concrete example, how the police will be able to use their power to carry out a search which is impossible under the present law? It seems to me that there is little difference between what is being proposed and what is already available to the police under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953. I wish to understand the intentions of the Government in this clause.

Mr. Younger: That point will be covered in detail in Committee. At present the police do not have powers to search

purely on suspicion. They certainly have powers to search after arrest but not on suspicion except in specified circumstances. There is a list of situations in which the police can search on suspicion, including suspicion of a person carrying dangerous drugs, but they cannot search on suspicion of a person carrying dangerous weapons. I do not think that that is unreasonable.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I was beginning to believe that the right hon. Gentleman had a prejudice against English Members. Does he accept that he is tipping the balance of power in favour of the police in an important discretionary area and that, moreover, it is an area in which enormous difficulties have been encountered in England and Wales with the "sus" law? That law is now largely discredited and the Government are reviewing it with a view to wiping it from the statute book. It has led to the erosion of whatever confidence the minority ethnic communities had in the police. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the problems encountered in England and Wales by the kind of law he is now proposing for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with any part of what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) says. However, I assure him that I have no prejudice of any kind against him. The situation in Scotland may be more fortunate than, or different from, the one he described. I am not empowered to declare on situations elsewhere, but in Scotland the relationship between the police and the public is extremely good. The majority of the public are most anxious to see that the police are properly equipped to deal, in particular, with people who may carry dangerous weapons. The hon. Gentleman might wish to bear in mind that one day he could be the victim of someone carrying a dangerous weapon. Should that ever occur, he might well be grateful for this provision.
Part II of the Bill contains proposals which are intended to make a major and substantial reform of Scottish law in relation to evidence and procedure. The Government believe that these provisions, taken as a whole, will be widely welcomed not only in making worthwhile


improvements to the efficiency of Scottish justice but in providing new and substantial rights and safeguards for an accused person.
Clause 6 provides for the revival of what is called "judicial examination", an old part of Scottish procedure which fell into disuse towards the end of the last century when an accused became entitled to give evidence in his own defence. It is the stage when a person who has been arrested with a view to prosecution on indictment is first brought before a sheriff, but it has now become—apart from the possibility of an application for bail—almost wholly formal.
The Thomson committee considered that fresh use should be made of this procedure and it received persuasive evidence from various prisoners that at present they had no opportunity to have their say until the trial. Those prisoners said that they would welcome an opportunity at an early stage to explain their position in relation to any alleged offence or to deny statements they were alleged to have made to the police. The second consideration which led the Thomson committee to its recommendation was the view that the present procedure led too readily to the preparation of false defences at the trial.
The provisions of clause 6 are based squarely on the recommendation of the Thomson committee in its second report. It provides that at judicial examination the prosecution may put to an accused questions designed to elicit any explanation he may have to offer of the circumstances giving rise to the charge. The accused will also have the opportunity to comment on anything of an incriminating nature which he may have said extrajudicially. I should stress from the outset that nothing in the clause removes —as has been alleged on a number of occasions—the right to silence.
When clause 6 passes into law, it will remain the accused's right to offer no statement either at the judicial examination or at the trial and to challenge the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He may therefore exercise his right to silence throughout the proceedings from the judicial examination to the trial itself. However, where he chooses to give evidence at his trial but not to answer questions before a sheriff

shortly after the alleged crime occurred, we do not think it unreasonable that he should be asked to explain to the jury the reasons for not putting forward his explanation at an earlier stage, or to explain any discrepancies between his answers at judicial examination and at the trial.
In the light of constructive criticism in another place, the Government have substantially amended the clause to include on the face of the Bill various safeguards and restrictions recommended by the committee. Formal questioning at judicial examination is to be carried out by the prosecutor, but the aims, scope and manner of questioning are strictly limited. The sheriff is entrusted with an overall duty to ensure that all questions are fairly put to, and understood by, the accused.
The accused has a right to be represented by a solicitor at a judicial examination and he will be told by the sheriff that he may consult his solicitor before offering a reply to any question. This is designed to protect the accused against offering any explanations which will prejudice him at his trial. The solicitor is also given a specific right, with the permission of the sheriff, to ask the accused any question at judicial examination which is intended to clarify any ambiguity in his replies or, where the accused has previously declined to answer a question, to give him another opportunity to reply. The Government believe that the revival of judicial examination will be of considerable benefit both in improving the efficiency of the judicial process and in allowing an accused person an early opportunity, in a legal setting, of putting forward his explanation of the alleged offence.
Clause 7 extends the jurisdiction of the district courts in Scotland so that, where appropriate, they can help ease the severe burden on the sheriff courts. The decision as to which court a case is prosecuted in remains, of course, with the procurator fiscal and this will ensure that this extension will not lead to inappropriate cases being heard in the district courts.
Clause 9 is one of a number of provisions which specifically extend the rights of an accused person. At present the prosecutor may require a reluctant witness to appear for precognition, mainly under common law powers, but there is no similar right for the defence to insist on


a witness appearing for precognition. Clause 9 enables the sheriff, on the application of the defence, to require such a witness to appear before him for that purpose.
I have already referred to the Bryden report, which deals with the question of identification procedures under Scottish criminal law. Most of the recommendations of that committee are presently being implemented administratively but two require legislation and they are in clause 10. That clause provides, first, for amendment of the legal aid scheme to allow duty solicitors to attend identification parades to represent the interests of the suspect or accused and, secondly, that where the prosecutor has not held an identification parade either on his own initiative or after a request by the accused the court may order him to do so on a request of the accused. Again, these provisions will be of direct benefit to an accused person and I hope that they will be greatly welcomed by the House.
Clause 12 is one of the shortest in the Bill but schedule 4 to which it gives effect is dauntingly technical. The broad effect is, however, simple in conception. Traditionally, Scottish trials on indictment have consisted of two diets. The first diet is intended for the taking of a plea and disposal of preliminary matters such as pleas of competence and relevance, and there is a trial diet if a plea of not guilty is adhered to. In practice, however, first diets have in most cases become a meaningless ritual where no real issues are discussed. In far too many cases a plea of guilty is not entered until trial diet, with the maximum inconvenience to jurors, witnesses and court staff.
The Thomson committee recommended that first diets should be reformed so as to serve a useful purpose in every case, but this has not proved possible. Instead, we have endeavoured to ensure that where there is a matter which can be usefully disposed of before the trial a preliminary diet should be held, but in all other cases where it would serve no good purpose it is abolished. The new system of optional preliminary diet set out in schedule 4 draws very heavily on the work done by the Thomson committee and in particular implements an important reservation that there should be a preliminary appeal against the court's deci-

sion at a preliminary diet on a plea of competence or relevance.
Clause 14 is yet another clause which is designed to further the rights of the accused person. It makes provision to tighten the present procedure for the prevention of delay in trials and in particular the 110-day rule which in Scots law has a similar importance to habeas corpus in England. That rule is now amended—as the Thomson committee recommended—so that it runs until the beginning of the trial, a fixed date, and not as at present to the uncertain date of its conclusion. It is one of the oddities of our legal system that no equivalent to the 110-day rule exists in summary procedure but the clause implements yet another Thomson recommendation by providing that no accused should be detained for more than 40 days under summary procedure after the bringing of the complaint in court. If his trial does not begin within that period, he will be declared free of the charge.
The clause also provides that under solemn procedure all trials should be started within 12 months of the accused's first appearance on petition and an accused is not to be in custody for more than 80 days without an indictment being served on him.
Those who have portrayed the Bill as being antagonistic to the accused ought to take on board all those provisions. They are all in favour of the accused, and I hope that they will he welcomed by the House.
I have already referred to the difficulties which are caused in solemn procedure by late intimations of pleas of guilty, and this problem is even more severe in summary cases. In a number of cases the cause of a late plea of guilty is known to be the reluctance of the accused to co-operate with his solicitor, provided out of public funds by legal aid. Clause 15 is by way of an experiment and empowers, but does not require, the court to set an intermediate diet at which the sheriff can inquire into the state of preparedness of the prosecution and defence cases and as to whether the accused intends to stick to his plea of not guilty.
Clause 19, which again implements a Thomson recommendation, deals with an oddity of Scots law. At present, unlike


the situation in England, there is no plea of "no case to answer". The accused may, at the end of the prosecution case, submit that the Crown has failed to make its case and that he should be acquitted, but, if the judge rejects that submission, he has lost his opportunity to lead evidence in his own defence. To a layman, it would seem unjust that the defence should be told, in effect, that there is a case to answer but that he has lost his opportunity of answering it. Under clause 19 the defence would in future be able to make a new submission of "no case to answer" and, if the court rejected it, the accused would not be debarred from leading evidence thereafter.
The increasing complexity of modern trials has led to juries in Scotland being in seclusion for considerable lengths of time, although not, I am glad to say, to the extent experienced south of the border. Under present legislation, which was originally passed in 1587, it is forbidden for any person to have contact with a jury, and this precludes the provision of proper meals or, were the occasion to arise, of overnight accommodation. Clause 24 of the Bill will allow a judge to give such instruction as he considers appropriate for the provision of meals and refreshments and overnight accommodation for jurors.

Mr. Buchan: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, surely he will say something in defence of clause 21.

Mr. George Foulkes: And of clause 23.

Mr. Buchan: And possibly of clause 23.

Mr. Younger: That matter can be raised by the hon. Gentleman in the debate.

Mr. Buchan: We consider it important.

Mr. Younger: If the conduct of the accused makes it difficult to conduct a trial properly, something has to be done, and this seems a reasonable way of proceeding. If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions to make for improving the clause, no doubt he will make them later.
Clauses 26 to 31 relate to evidence. Clause 31 in particular deserves note. The general principle of corroboration, which is that no one can be convicted of a crime

witness, is fundamental to Scots law and, although there has been some relaxation of this in certain cases, it applies very widely indeed. It even extends to the evidence of traffic wardens, and consequently in Scotland these wardens have to patrol in pairs. Particularly at a time when the constraints on public expenditure are severe, it is difficult to justify this, and the clause would therefore provide that, for those very minor motoring offences to which the ticket system applies, the evidence of one witness shall be sufficient for conviction in the event of the case coming to trial.
The Thomson committee devoted its first and third reports to the reform of both solemn appeals and the much criticised summary appeals procedure. Clauses 32 to 36 and schedules 2 and 3 implement these recommendations with modifications. Some Labour Members may feel that they are suffering, as elsewhere in the Bill, a sense of deja vu as regards the proposed measures on summary appeals, since the Labour Government tabled amendments to implement them in their Bill, although they remained undebated at the time of the general election.
Perhaps the most substantial reform is the implementation of the Thomson improvements to the stated case procedure, but the provisions also recognise the fundamental difficulty of any appellate court in that it has not heard evidence given at the trial. We therefore propose to provide the court with a new power, as an alternative to upholding or dismissing the appeal, to set aside a conviction and authorise retrial where all the evidence can be led.
The concept of retrial is new to Scots law, but it was recommended by the Thomson committee for appeals in solemn procedure. The previous Labour Government proposed to extend it to summary procedure, and we agree with them in that conclusion. Some concern has already been expressed that retrial must necessarily be prejudiced because of publicity surrounding the case. It is, however, somewhat difficult to know whether such publicity will rebound to the disadvantage of the defence or the prosecution since the publicity may well have concentrated on the appeal court setting aside the original verdict of guilty. I do not expect that the retrial procedure will be used at all widely, but in cases of genuine and fundamental doubt it would offer the


best means of ensuring justice. I should perhaps add that it can only follow a verdict of guilty. There can be no question of retrial where the accused has been acquitted.
Part III of the Bill deals with penalties and reforms the law in a number of respects. In particular, it contains several provisions designed to reduce the use of imprisonment. It is a matter of great concern that Scotland has one of the highest male prison populations per head of population in Western Europe. Imprisonment is an expensive and sometimes ineffective penalty, and the Government's intention is to ensure that imprisonment is used only when it is necessary in the interests of the protection of society or for some other good reason. The Bill therefore includes measures to continue the policy of reducing the use of imprisonment already given effect to in the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act and the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act.
Part III of the Bill also includes new provision for custodial sentences for young offenders. We agree with our predecessors that the present three overlapping sentences—of young offenders' institution, borstal and detention centre —are unsatisfactory and wasteful of resources to no purpose, but we attach great importance to the power of the courts to sentence young offenders to the brisk discipline of a detention centre such as Glenochil. We believe that brief experience of a regime of this kind may serve to deter a young offender from further involvement in crime. Clause 44 therefore provides for detention centre sentences of between 28 days and four months, with a discretion in the court, in passing such a sentence, to order detention in a young offenders institution where it considers a detention centre sentence inappropriate.
It is also likely that, in the course of considering the Bill, the House will wish to consider the merits of the Emslie report on mandatory minimum recommendations for life sentence prisoners. In view of the decision taken in another place to amend clause 42 to remove from the Bill the requirement on a judge to make a minimum recommendation, the Government are anxious to have the views of hon. Members on both sides of

the House before deciding whether this proposal should be reintroduced.
Part IV of the Bill introduces a system of compensation by the offender to the victim of his crime similar to that which already exists and operates successfully in England and Wales.

Mr. Dewar: May I take it—I think that it is a fair implication from what the right hon. Gentleman said—that there will be a free vote on the Government side on the Emslie committee's recommendation?

Mr. Younger: I think that we are a long way from deciding matters such as that. In any case, those are not matters for me to decide. It is for my right hon. and hon. Friends to decide those matters. I am sure that we shall come to that in due course.
Under the provisions—I am still on part IV of the Bill—any criminal court in Scotland will be able to order an offender to compensate the victim of his crime for any loss, damage or injury the victim has suffered as a result of the crime without the need for him to raise a separate civil action. It is intended that this new power will be used by the criminal courts in those many cases where it is clear to them that an offender can afford to compensate his victim and that it would be right and proper that he should do so, although it will not in any way affect the existing rights of the victim under civil law. In those cases where an offender does not have sufficient means to pay both the fine and the compensation order, the Bill makes it clear that the court should give preference to the compensation order, thus ensuring that the victim rather than the Exchequer will benefit in the first instance. I feel sure that the House will welcome this measure.
Part V deals with a problem of concern to us all—the problem of violence and disorder associated with the holding of sporting events, especially football matches. Too often, a Saturday afternoon's entertainment at a Scottish football match is marred by the drunken and violent behaviour of a hooligan minority. In turn, this is threatening the very life of the game as crowds dwindle with the more responsible fans preferring to stay away. These problems were considered by a working group, chaired by the hon.


Member for Queen's Park when Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, which concluded that a major contributory factor to football violence was excessive drinking. The Government share that view, and part V is designed to tackle the problem by implementing the group's recommendations relating to a ban on the carriage and consumption of alcohol by supporters at certain sporting events, and on private hire coaches travelling to or from such events.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to designate the sports grounds and events to which the controls in part V of the Bill will apply, and while we have primarily in mind the designation of professional football matches and the grounds at which these are played, the terms of the Bill would enable them to be extended to cover other types of sporting events if circumstances should make that necessary. While clearly these measures alone cannot cure what is a widespread and greatly disturbing problem, we believe that they can make a significant impact in reducing the amount of rowdy and disorderly behaviour at and around football grounds and can make Saturday afternoons more pleasant for all involved.
Part VI contains a number of miscellaneous and general provisions. I should like to draw attention to clause 76. Vandalism is a cause of great concern to many ordinary people in Scotland. It ruins the quality of life for those unfortunate enough to have to live in areas where it is rife, and it places a major financial burden on the ratepaper. In Scottish law at present, it hides under the inappropriate name of "malicious mischief" and, indeed, is often not prosecuted as such but further concealed under some wider offence such as breach of the peace. The statutory offence in clause 76 brings the terminology up to date and will enable the courts to identify previous convictions of a similar nature and take account of them when imposing sentence.
It is inevitable that I have had to take some time to try to explain as much of the Bill as possible. I hope that the House will feel that I have done my best in the time available.
This is a long, complex, but important Bill. It includes a wide range of reforms of Scottish justice, but running through the whole Bill is, I hope, the

core of a consistent approach to criminal policy generally. Every citizen should be entitled to expect from the State a system of justice which is fair. To be fair, it must be efficient and reasonably swift. It must protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Its punishments must also be humane. All of these objectives are advanced in the Bill. I believe that it offers a fair balance between the powers of the police and the rights of the individual, between justice and efficiency. It seeks to make imprisonment less common and yet more effective, to make criminal procedure cheaper and better for the individual as well as for the State and to justify and to enhance continued public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system. It takes full account of the deliberations of a number of distinguished committees reporting over recent years and the representations and reflections to which their reports give rise.
The Bill is no monster and no exception. Nor is it a Bill that could be abhorred by many people, as has been claimed in the media in recent weeks. It deals in a measured and carefully considered manner with some of the most difficult and controversial topics in criminal policy. I believe that it does so constructively, fairly and successfully. I commend it to the House in the hope that it will pass it with complete confidence.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Milan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will damage relationships between the police and public in Scotland by giving excessive powers of detention to the police and by providing them with new powers to stop and search for offensive weapons.
The Bill is a mixture. It is a lengthy Bill. Many parts are uncontroversial as between the two sides of the House. Indeed, many of the provisions are exactly the same as those included in the Bill introduced by the previous Labour Government but which fell at the general election. We shall continue to support those provisions in the Bill which are uncontroversial or were included in the Labour Bill. That does not mean that because provision was included in the previous Labour Bill it should not be subjected to the full scrutiny of the


House, including scrutiny by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by Conservative Members. There are many uncontroversial aspects in the Bill, and we do not oppose the Bill as a whole.
There are matters of considerable concern, especially in the first part of the Bill, dealing with the stop and search powers for offensive weapons and with police powers of detention. Nothing that the Government have done since the publication of the Bill, either in their drafting of the Bill or in their handling of the matter, has in any way allayed the concern of many in Scotland about those provisions. The attitude taken by the Minister today in his description of the critics of the Bill does not help to allay the concern expressed by many perfectly responsible bodies, such as the Law Society of Scotland.
The Bill has been altered, to some extent, in the other place. Many of the virtues and safeguards about certain clauses on which we have considerable reservations were introduced in the other place following criticism by Labour peers. It was a little dishonest of the Minister to describe those provisions without mentioning that they were not included in the Bill as it was originally introduced. I shall return to that matter later.
We have tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill. Unless the Government were unexpectedly to agree to accept our criticisms and to amend the Bill accordingly —and I do not believe that that will happen—we shall press our reasoned amendment to a Division at the end of the debate.
I do not intend to speak, even briefly, about all the provisions in the Bill. The Secretary of State did not do that, and I shall not do so either; it would take far too long. Apart from the provisions on detention, I shall deal mainly with the provisions that were not included in the Labour Bill. That does not mean that some of the provisions that are repeated are unimportant. Some of them are extremely important. It does not mean that some of them are not controversial. There is the question of the accused's removal from the court, which Conservative Members managed to delete from the Labour Bill because of their violent opposition but which now rears its head as a new

provision in this Bill. These matters can be discussed in Committee.
I wish to deal with the stop and search powers and the police power of detention. I wish to set those against the background of relations between the police and the public, because that subject is specifically mentioned in our reasoned amendment. It is the background against which we should consider these provisions. Every good policeman, whether he is the man on the beat or the chief constable, recognises that he is dependent on public co-operation for his efficiency and effectiveness. Without public co-operation, the role of the police force in society would be considerably diminished. Therefore, we must do everything possible to ensure a friendly and co-operative relationship between the police and the public.
I agree with the Secretary of State that at present the relationships between the police and the public in Scotland are good. In most instances they are very good. However, that does not mean that certain sections of the community are not worried about police powers and that there are not many complaints about police behaviour. In Scotland we have avoided some of the difficulties which have prejudiced and embittered relationships between the police and the public in England. That has arisen in part—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen from English constituencies will cease their dialogue, I can make my point. The Solicitor-General for Scotland said that there is a right to silence here, and I hope that some hon. Gentlemen will exercise it for a moment.
The relationships between the police and the public in Scotland are good because some of the incidents which have arisen south of the border have not arisen in Scotland. We are fortunate from that point of view. The police in Scotland accept, and most hon. Members will accept, that there have been better relationships between the police and the public in Scotland than has been the case south of the border in recent years. I do not say that by way of criticism of the English police.
Certain aspects of the Scottish system help in ensuring better relationships between the police and the public. There is an independent prosecution system. Some of the controversy which arises


over deaths in police custody south of the border is dealt with by different judicial procedures in Scotland. Scotland pioneered community involvement by the police, and it is better developed there than in England and Wales.
However, there is another side to the story. We do not have a formal procedure for complaints against the police. That is a deficiency, and it is my regret that the Labour Government were not able to introduce the necessary legislation when they were in power. It would be ill advised for any hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency to believe that there is any cause for complacency about relationships between the police and the public. I remember when the relationships were a good deal less friendly and when there was a good deal more friction than there is now. That was particularly true—it is relevant to clause 4 of the Bill—in 1968 or 1969 when the controversy about the stop and search practice for offensive weapons was at its height in Scotland. There was tremendous publicity and controversy. There was also much worry in Scotland about police harassment of young people.
Relationships between the police and the public can deteriorate quickly, and in my view clause 4 will contribute to their deterioration. In that context, I refer to the stop and search powers contained in clause 4. This proposal has a long history. It dates back to before the recommendations of the Scottish Council on Crime. One of its recommendations, which is not contained in the Bill, was that the powers should be introduced over a trial period. The Scottish Council on Crime—if not the present Government —recognised the potential difficulties and dangers from the introduction of powers of this sort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will remember the incidents during 1968 and 1969 when he was a junior Minister at the Scottish Office with responsibility for the matter. At that time the subject was considered carefully, but we reached the conclusion that to introduce this power with its potentiality for abuse could seriously damage relationships between the police and the public in Scotland and that abuses could lead to considerable infringements of civil liberties.
I believe that that argument is equally valid today. In fact, it is even more valid today, because if we take account of the other provisions of the Bill, particularly the provision for detention, it is by no means clear that the power contained in clause 4 is necessary—if a power of detention is provided in the Bill. There are circumstances—for example, in dealing with the commission of an offence involving an offensive weapon—in which the power might be justified. At present the police have the power of arrest, and that power will remain, whatever provisions are included in clause 4. However, if clause 2 is accepted in its present form, in future if a constable has any suspicion he will be able to use the new powers of detention, and he will be able to take a suspected individual to the police station and search him there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked why the new power is needed. If it will not make very much difference, it is redundant. If it is intended to make a considerable difference to the law, it can only be in the sense that the power will be used for searches in the street. We object to that, because that is where the danger will arise. The potentiality of the danger for abuse arises specifically from the power given to a police constable to search individuals in the streets.
Admittedly, there are safeguard provisions about reasonable grounds of suspicion and so on, but we all know that in practice this sort of power could be easily abused. If the clause is accepted, and the power is used to a significant extent, it will considerably prejudice relationships between the police and many young people, and that will spill over to the rest of the community and seriously damage relationships between the police and the public. Where the action is not justified, it is an invasion of privacy and an invasion of civil liberties.
There has never been a case which would have justified this provision. I understand the emotion behind the argument that the power should be used in relation to offensive and dangerous weapons, but in reality I do not believe that the provision would be desirable, and I am not sure that it is necessary, given the provision in clause 2.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that it is acceptable for a person to be searched in that way for dangerous drugs but not for dangerous weapons?

Mr. Milian: Searching for dangerous drugs is not open to abuse in the same way as searching for offensive weapons. The circumstances in which such searches might take place are more restricted than those for offensive weapons. Any power of search given to the police, including searching intending passengers at airports, is in a sense an attack on civil liberties. I do not dispute the later powers in the Bill with regard to searching people attending football matches, searches for dangerous drugs or searches at airports. The circumstances and locations of such searches are circumscribed by the potential or suspected offences, but that does not apply to searches for offensive weapons.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right bon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milan: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters and I hope that he will make his speech later. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Perhaps much later, atfer 10 o'clock.

Mr. Griffiths: I am trying to understand the right hon. Gentleman's thought process. It appears that he has no rigid objection to searches for drugs, for the purpose of airport security or for alcohol on coaches or at football grounds, but he objects to searches for offensive weapons. What is the fundamental distinction? Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the police will abuse their powers? They, too, are subject to discipline and to the law.

Mr. Milan: I am merely saying that the provision is open to abuse. In view of the problem of the relationship between the police and young people in urban areas, one must accept that the provision is open to abuse. I believe that the police would accept that. They may argue that they would not abuse the power but not that it was not open to abuse. I have already dealt with the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The provisions in part I of the Bill dealing with powers of detention also give rise to controversy. We have to

reconcile two interests that may conflict. That applies not only to detention but also to powers of arrest. There is the right of the citizen and the need to prosecute crime, bring the guilty to trial and, hopefully, conviction. It is not right to approach the matter purely from the standpoint of rights of the citizen. Equally, it is wrong to take an approach that is obsessed with the need for successful prosecutions and ignores or belittles the rights of the citizen.
The Thomson report put the point well. In paragraph 2.01 it quotes Lord Justice-General Cooper on the conflict:
Neither of these objects can be insisted upon to the uttermost. The protection of the citizen is primarily protection for the innocent citizen against unwarranted, wrongful and perhaps highhanded interference, and the common sanction is an action of damages. The protection is not intended as a protection for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the public prosecutor to vindicate the law. On the other hand, the interest of the State cannot be magnified to the point of causing all the safeguards for the protection of the citizen to vanish, and of offering a positive inducement to the authorities to proceed by irregular methods.
There is a gap in the law with regard to powers of detention. I do not agree with the provisions in the Bill, but I still believe, as I did when I was Secretary of State, that the law should cover that gap. Paragraph 3.10 of Thomson states:
If, as Lord Cameron put it … a person is either arrested or is not: there is no halfway house', and if arrest is competent only when police enquiries have reached the stage at which there is sufficient evidence to charge, it follows that the police have no power to detain a person whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect of a crime unless and until the evidence against him is sufficiently corroborated to justify reporting him to the procurator fiscal. If the police wish a suspect to remain in a particular place or to go to a police station pending further enquiry they must persuade him to do so voluntarily, and this can lead … to an artificial situation in which the suspect is technically a volunteer but is in practice not a free agent.
That is what happens now.
Some of my hon. Friends may argue that the law should be left as it is. However, I do not agree. I believe that it leads to artificial and highly unsatisfactory situations that abuse a person's civil rights when he voluntarily accompanies a police officer to a police station. He probably will not know his rights. None of us is sure of the law in such a situation. A person who goes voluntarily to a police


station has no idea of his rights with regard to answering questions or how long he can be detained.
It is unrealistic to believe that the position will change without a change in the law. These abuses, irregularities and perhaps even illegalities will not simply disappear. The law should be regularised so that the police and the citizens know their rights. If the police step outside their rights and offend against the law, the necessary action, whether disciplinary or action for damages, should be taken against them.
If we are to change the law, we must get the changes right and make sure that they are acceptable. If we produce legislation that contains provisions offensive to many people, including those professionally concerned, it will be a considerable mistake.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend mentions the possibility of the police abusing the law by way of irregularities. If the provisions in the Bill come into effect, there will be other irregularities that they can engage in. The Bill will move the barrier between civil liberties and police powers a little more in favour of the police, and the opportunity for irregularities may therefore be extended.

Mr. Milian: That is always possible. It is certainly possible if we do not get the drafting of the legislation right. If we get the drafting of the legislation right, we can write in protections for the citizen which will make it more difficult for irregularities to take place. That would be one of my objectives in dealing with this part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Ancram: At the moment the right hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about irregularities. Does he accept that in many cases these are now regarded by the law as regularities? In particular, since the case of Hartley v. Her Majesty's Advocate of a year and a half ago, the courts have found no unfairness in a youth being held for 12 hours before he confessed.

Mr. Milian: I do not want to deal with individual cases, but, of course, many of these events are not irregular. There is nothing to prevent a citizen from volunteering to help the police

with their inquiries. There is nothing illegal or necessarily irregular about that. But at the moment the policeman and the citizen are not an on equal footing on this matter, for if the policeman knows the law, the citizen does not. The citizen will often co-operate, in circumstances in which he has no particular wish to co-operate, because he is not aware of his rights. He is perhaps apprehensive that if he does not cooperate, something more disagreeable will happen to him, such as being placed under formal arrest. That is not a satisfactory position. That does not mean to say that it is illegal or even, in many circumstances, irregular, but it is not satisfactory, and I should like to make the law satisfactory. That was why we introduced certain provisions in the Labour Government's Bill which fell with the election.
The Government have mishandled this area of the Bill very badly, both in terms of tile changes they have made as compared with what was in our Bill and also in terms of the further provisions of the present Bill. First, they have increased the powers of detention from four hours to six hours—admittedly on the basis of the Thomson recommendation. We had provision for four hours in our Bill. In my view, no more than four hours is necessary. Even with an unco-operative suspect, the period of four hours is more than adequate to elicit any information —if, indeed, that is the purpose of the exercise—from him. There is protection in the Bill about answering questions, just as there was in the Labour Government's Bill.
Secondly, the inclusion of the provision for fingerprinting is a great mistake. It very considerably increases the powers of the police in this regard. It was specifically excluded from the Labour Government's Bill. That provision should be removed from the Bill.
Even worse than that, the Secretary of State has removed a provision that was in the original Bill—although he did not mention it—which would have allowed continuation of detention after six hours on an application to a magistrate, so that the whole process could continue. Although the Government have now responded to pressure in the other place, their original intention gave justifiable concern to those who felt that the whole balance


was being tilted far too much in favour of police powers and far too much against the suspected person. When we take these differences from the Labour Government's Bill, along with the powers of stop and search, which I have already mentioned, and the original provisions concerning judicial examination in clause 6, to which I shall come shortly, it is clear that the balance of the Bill is wrong. Although the Government have made certain changes in the light of criticisms made in the other place and elsewhere, the Bill is still wrong.
We have to reconsider the whole of this part of the Bill in relation to the length of time for which a person may be detained, the fingerprinting provision, and the rest. These are all related to clause 2. We also have to look again at the provisions concerning witnesses, although some change has been made in clause 1, which is now basically the same as in the Labour Government's Bill. Nevertheless, the Government's intentions have given rise to considerable concern, and this must be taken into account before we allow the Bill to be put on the statute book.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify to the House the fact that, despite having a power of detention in his own Bill, he is advising his hon. Friends, in the reasoned amendment, to vote against what are described as the excessive detention powers in the Government's Bill. So far, he has mentioned only two points of difference —the six hours' detention instead of four hours, and the right to take fingerprints. I think he would accept that that alone is not a particularly good reason to stand on his head and vote against powers that he introduced.

Mr. Milian: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I mentioned three provisions. I believe that, even taken by themselves, these are sufficient reasons.
Public opinion has moved very sharply against the Bill, largely because the Government, in their original provisions—and it is true of the Bill even as it stands at present—tilted the balance very considerably in favour of the police and against the suspected person. That was a profound mistake, and many of the problems that the Government now have flow from that way of drafting the Bill. My

comment applies also to the stop and search powers as a whole.
We have to look at the Bill as a whole, particularly part I. The Government have tilted the balance in the wrong way. They have given many responsible people the impression that they are less concerned with the rights of the citizens than with getting successful prosecutions at all costs. The Government have made a profound mistake. Therefore, these matters ought to be looked at.
The question of witnesses will have to be looked at again, under clause 1, as will the matter of access to solicitors, under clause 3. That is important, as is the matter of access to another person, although I accept that there is need for a provision that will allow delay in certain circumstances. I do not think that that argument applies with the same force with regard to solicitors, and it needs to be looked at again.
If we are to have any of these provisions, it would be sensible to accept for a trial period the suggestion that was made by the Scottish Council on Crime concerning stop and search. In my view, it would be sensible to apply that concept of a trial period to all the provisions in the first four clauses and not simply to clause 4 on stop and search. An amendment to that end was moved in another place but was turned down by the Government.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): When did the light dawn on the right hon. Gentleman? I do not remember anything about the equivalent provisions in his Bill being for a trial period.

Mr. Milian: I am trying to explain that the provisions in the Bill are not the same as the provisions in the Labour Government's Bill. What is more, there is considerably increased public concern about the provisions in the Bill, including the new provisions on stop and search, as compared with the provisions in the Labour Government's Bill. We cannot give consent to the Bill as it stands. I am not impressed by arguments about the law of England, and so on, and I hope that the Government will not try to rely on those arguments.
I should like to make s, me brief comments on the other parts of the Bill and


to deal with them in the order in which they appear in the Bill. With. regard to clause 6, on judicial examination, I should not want to turn that down out of hand, but it is a very considerable change in the law. It may be technically a reversal to a previous position under Scots law, but it is a very considerable change. It is quite misleading for the Secretary of State to say that it is not an attack on the right of silence. It is an attack on the right of silence, because silence, under these provisions, can be construed as some kind of admission of guilt. I am using the term in a non-legal sense. It can certainly be put against the accused at his trial that he was not willing to answer questions at the judicial examination. There is a very important principle involved here, and there is no point in Conservative Members denying it.
The Secretary of State described what is in the clause, but he did not say that the clause has been significantly amended in another place. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of trouble with the Bill. He will recollect that the clause, as drafted in another place, was much wider in providing what was to be admissible in judicial examinations than was intended by Thomson, or is intended by the Bill as it is now drafted. I accept that it may have been wider because of sloppy drafting, but it was far too widely drawn. I admit that it has been amended. It has been improved by the amendments moved in another place.
There is still considerable anxiety about the scope of questioning that would be allowed. There is still anxiety about the role of the prosecutor as distinct from the role of the presiding judge in the judicial examination. The provisions follow Thomson, but the legal profession is worried.
The role of the accused's solicitor is circumscribed. I think I am right in saying that in the clause as originally drafted and introduced in another place there was no role for the solicitor for the accused—

Mr. Rifkind: rose—

Mr. Milian: The Minister will be handling the Bill in Committee. Some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members will be fortunate enough to

be members of the Committee. I do not include myself in that category. I have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman on housing to last me a long time.
I think that I am right in saying that originally the clause provided no rights for accused's solicitors. That is an issue that will have to be carefully examined in Committee.
Clause 15 deals with the intermediate diet. I welcome it. I do not know how the system will work out in practice, but it deals with the problem of pleas of guilty being tendered at the last minute after much expense has been entered into. I discussed the matter, as Secretary of State, with the Law Society. We were not able to reach a sensible conclusion by administrative means. I welcome the clause and I hope that it will work.
Clause 23 seeks to reduce the peremptory challenge. I am against reducing that challenge from five jurors to one. If it is reduced to one, I see no good reason for having the peremptory challenge. The right peremptorily to challenge one juror would be derisory. The Government would be extremely foolish to enact that provision.
In Scotland we have managed to do without jury vetting. The Lord Advocate said recently that he hopes to continue to do without it. We have avoided that controversy. However, if we are to reduce the peremptory challenge to one, and thereby force challenge to be given with cause, it will not be long before we have jury vetting in Scotland. I shall deplore that. I hope that the Government will drop the clause. If they want to make a reduction, they should not move from five to one, which would make the right derisory.
I welcome clause 24, which gives right of access to a jury at least for providing its members with food and drink. It puts right an unfortunate provision in the law.
I welcome in general terms clauses 32 and 36 and the accompanying schedules on appeals. As the Secretary of State has said, on summary appeals the clauses and the schedules follow very much the amendments that the previous Labour Government introduced while taking their Criminal Justice Bill through the House. Those amendments were never discussed.
We must consider the concept of new trials extremely carefully. I agree with Lord McCluskey on the issue of new trials in solemn procedure. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there is a problem about publicity for a new trial under solemn procedure. The previous trial may have received a tremendous amount of publicity and it will be difficult to get a new jury that is able to clear its mind of everything that has gone before. The right hon. Gentleman said that the publicity might work in one direction or another. That seems to miss the point. I do not want the publicity to work in one direction or another. I do not want there to be any prejudice, whether in favour of the accused or against him at a retrial. It is difficult to avoid that under solemn procedure. I am not happy but, again, it is an issue that can be considered in Committee.
Clause 42 deals with mandatory recommendations by judges on murder verdicts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will drop the provision to make recommendations mandatory. It is completely misguided. It is a topic that appeared in the right hon. Gentleman's election manifesto. I must be careful and refrain from saying that we should pay no attention to what appears in manifestos, as such a comment might be quoted against me in another context. However, the present system works perfectly well. I know from personal experience as Secretary of State that the judges and the Parole Board are involved. A mandatory recommendation would be a recommendation of no binding statutory effect. I believe that the Government should accept the decision of another place and leave well alone.
Clauses 56 to 65 deal with compensation by offenders, I welcome these clauses. The proposed system, which is rather less complicated than that recommended by the Dunpark committee, is an improvement. I hope that it will work.
Clauses 66 to 75 turn on football hooliganism. These are matters that can-be considered in detail in Committee. I believe that the general thrust of the provisions in the clauses is right. The previous Labour Government said that they intended to introduce similar legislation following the McElhone report.
It seems that there is considerable and legitimate concern about the problem of violence at football matches, hooliganism and the extent to which that arises from drink, especially in Scotland. The McElhone report made various recommendations to football authorities and others. It also made recommendations to the Government. If we expect football authorities to carry out the recommendations made to them—I certainly expect them to do so, and some of them are making an effort—it is only right for them to ask the Government of the day to implement the parts of the report that involve legislation.
There are difficulties in making such legislation enforceable and effective. However, I took the view as Secretary of State that every attempt should be made to make the provisions as effective and enforceable as possible. I think that the right hot). Gentleman should give greater guidance on how he intends to designate sporting grounds. He will cause considerable offence—in my view legitimate offence—to football supporters if he says that these provisions will apply only at football matches and not at other major sporting events in Scotland.
Clause 76 relates to vandalism. I do not believe that there is one hon. Member who is not deeply concerned about vandalism and who does not wish to see everything possible done by the law, and in every other way, to reduce its incidence. It causes considerable offence in the public eye and to the rights of ordinary citizens. I want to see it considerably reduced. Unfortunately, the provisions within clause 76 are cosmetic. The clause makes no difference to the legal situation. In no meaningful sense does it create a new offence. It does not provide for increased penalties. It is a highly undesirable way of dealing with the problem. It attempts to give the impression to the public that something is being done when nothing is being done. We are not in favour of the clause.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if it did nothing else, bringing in the word "vandalism" instead of the phrase "malicious mischief" would do something to fight against those against whom he says that we should fight?

Mr. Millan: I wish I believed that. If I did, I would be in favour even of a cosmetic operation. However, I do not believe that for one moment.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that within the legal system in Scotland we already deploy the technique of giving specific names to crimes which we abhor? At one time in the law of Scotland we had the quaint crime of "hamesucken", which was assault within the home. Now, the most obvious and best example is the crime of rape. The law of assault would cover anything done within the abomination of rape, but we give it a specific name because we detest that crime.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure about that. Even if it is true, giving it a specific name does not stop the incidence of rape. I am concerned about stopping the incidence of vandalism and I do not believe that giving it a name will help. However, I do not want to argue the point at any length. I simply believe that this is a cosmetic and dishonest exercise and I am against it.
I sum up by saying that of course there are some provisions of the Bill that are good and that we positively welcome. I referred to some of them during my speech. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the whole Bill is undesirable. I agree with the Secretary of State at least to the extent that any criticism which suggests that the whole of the Bill is undesirable is misguided. However, the Bill is flawed as regards the matters that are the subject of our reasoned amendment. It is flawed both in the way in which it has been drafted and also in the way in which the Government have dealt with it.
The attitude the Government have adopted towards critics of the Bill is that they are misguided and misinformed and have not read the Bill. The Secretary of State said that critics do not know what they are talking about and should leave the Bill to the virtues, right thinking and experience of the Government. But in a matter of this importance it is not sensible to legislate only on the basis of what the Government think is right, even when they are acting on recommendations made by distinguished committees, to whom I also pay tribute. It is necessary to take informed opinion on these matters as

well as getting things right in terms of the rights of individual citizens. I believe that, on the matters which are the subject of our reasoned amendment, the Government have signally failed to do that and that is why we shall press our amendment tonight.

Mr. David Steel: I can begin on a note with which the Secretary of State will agree. It is unfortunate that the controversy surrounding part I has tended to detract from the merits of other parts of the measure. None the less, it is right that I should say at the outset that the flaws, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigion (Mr. Millan) put it, in part I are of such a substantial nature that it is right for me to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill this evening.
I also apologise for the fact that, due to an unavoidable prior commitment outside the House, I shall not be present for the whole of the debate. However, in mitigation, I shall impose a self-denying 10-minute rule and deal with part I of the Bill only. Before I do that, I should say that one argument was used by the Secretary of State of which I hope we shall hear no more as the Bill proceeds, and that was the extraordinary admission that considerations of public expenditure were dictating the section of the Bill that deals with the requirement for there to be one witness only on minor traffic offences.
I believe that I am right in saying that there is only one precedent in Scottish law for a court allowing uncorroborated evidence. The Solicitor-General for Scotland shakes his head. Perhaps I should say that there is one precedent with which I am familiar. It is the Tweed Act 1950, which refers to poaching in my constituency. That is not a happy precedent or one which finds much favour among my constituents.
It may be that we should accept this small alteration in respect of minor traffic offences, but let us do it on its merits and not out of considerations about public expenditure. After all courts and justice are expensive and I do not think that such an argument should be adduced.
It must be admitted that the Bill as we now have it in the House is a substantial improvement on the horrifying mess that it was when it entered the other place. I pay tribute to my noble Friends in the other place for the work that they did to improve the Bill. I refer especially to the work of Lord Foot, who, though not a Scottish Member, took a considerable interest in the Bill because of its implications, to which I shall turn later, for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am never attracted by the argument that something the Government propose is more acceptable because it bears a resemblance to something which a previous Government proposed. This should automatically arouse suspicions rather than approbation in the House. It is extraordinary that a Conservative Government are now bringing forward some proposals which they actually opposed while in Opposition, while the official Opposition spokesman has just, rather unconvincingly, opposed some parts of a Bill which he introduced. At one stage in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I thought that the great philosophical gulf between the onward march of Socialism against reactionary Conservatism was a matter of two hours. I found that extremely unconvincing. Is the Solicitor-General seeking to intervene at this stage, or has he changed his mind?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman which measures the Government have proposed which they previously opposed when in Opposition, and which measures the Opposition have opposed which they previously proposed when in Government. We do not all have the benefit of being Liberals, and therefore we do not find it natural to face in both directions on every issue.

Mr. Steel: On the contrary, what I am arguing for is a certain consistency. Parties when in Government should maintain the same attitude they had when in Opposition. An hon. Member is prompting me from behind saying that there was an earlier reference to a clause which the Conservatives opposed.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Steel: I promised to be brief, so I must move on. This clause has already been referred to in the debate.
My principal objection to the two features of part I is that the Government are pleading that these flow from the recommendations of the Thomson committee. Yet it must be accepted, surely, that that committee recommended the new powers of detention only in the context of safeguards which are not included in the Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government have been highly selective in their approach to the reports of that committee, quoting parts of it which happened to suit them and ignoring other parts. For that reason, I believe that we are right to be critical of the Government's proposal to proceed with a new form of detention without charge and also without the safeguards which the independent committee recommended.
I believe I am right in saying also that the police, in evidence to the Thomson committee, did not ask for these powers. We have not heard any argument so far as to why the Government have decided to proceed with these powers. Surely the nub of the argument, both on detention and on increasing the powers of search beyond those which already exist under the 1953 legislation, is about the effect this is likely to have on relationships between the police and the rest of the community.
I am very disturbed about the deteriorating relationship between the police and certain sections of the community—and I use that phrase advisedly. There is a generation gap here. In the cities there are certain members of the younger generation who appear to be developing antipolice attitudes, which should be extremely worrying to Members of the House. We should debate very carefully before we get into any detail—this is what Second Reading is about—the whole philosophy behind these two measures.
The Government's attitude appears to be that if there is an unacceptable level of undetected crime, the way to tackle it is to increase the powers of the police in these two respects. I argue that that basic philosophy is wrong. The Government should analyse why there is a difference, both in the general crime rate and


in the detection rate, between the smaller communities such as those in my own constituency and the cities.
Without going into a long philosophical harangue about the nature of city life, the lack of neighbourliness and so on, let us look at police methods and the facts of police manning as between, say, my constituency and the big cities. In my constituency, by its very nature, the police force is small. The police personnel live in the very small communities, where the offenders also live, and the result is an integration of the police with the community. This is not in any artificial sense; not in terms of the community schemes to which reference was made earlier; not in terms of what the Home Secretary was referring to the other day in Bristol, about service on community relations councils. It is in the ordinary life of the community, outside the life of the policeman wearing his official uniform.
The result is that when crime is committed there is a natural network of information and a natural network of trust and communication between the police in the community and the community that they are policing. I think that we have lost part of that in the big cities. From my observations on going around some of our cities, the tendency over the years in policing has been to move away from the man on the beat and from the small local community police station to the new centralised police building, with all its advantages of modern equipment, coupled with the panda car. The result is that there is not the involvement of the police with the local community that there used to be. Instead of that, the police are seen as almost an alien, outside force coming into a community in panda cars whenever there is trouble, and they are not of the community.
It seems to me that that is the basic mistake that has been made. It is a trend that has been going on over the years. If we want to tackle the problems that lie behind these two proposals in the Bill, we should do it by adopting a deliberate policy of getting the police back into the communities. If that were to happen, I think that there would be no need to bring forward proposals of this kind.
The argument is really about the balance between greater and more effective crime control, and a proper respect for

civil liberties and individual freedom. Of course, it can be argued that greater security is as important a component part of the citizen's liberty as his individual freedom. But I think that if one is to argue that, the sacrifices of individual liberty must obviously be worth while. I think that that is where this part of the Bill falls down. The Government have not demonstrated their case for it.
But the other balance that we have to maintain is that between better crime control and the trust, confidence and good will of all sections of the community. I think that the accusation can be levelled that the Bill is guilty of substantial overkill in this respect. I do not want to sound complacent about crime levels in Scotland or about their seriousness, but I sometimes think that some of the speeches that we hear about crime only exaggerate the picture and that we tend to forget the scale of lawlessness in our big cities, for example, in the last century. But, even if one looks at the criminal statistics for 1978 in Scotland, one finds that murders were down by 33 per cent., theft was down by 27,000 cases, malicious damage was down by 4 per cent., housebreaking was down and there was a 1½ per cent. improvement in the detection rate. That is good news, and it ought to be shouted much more from the rooftops, without in any way diminishing the underlying serious problems that remain.
The pay rises for the police have reduced by 60 per cent. the shortage in authorised manpower. That in itself will help.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I entirely accept the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given about these welcome reductions in the past year, but to take just one, that for malicious damage, where the right hon. Gentleman said there had been a 4 per cent. reduction on the previous year, on that same set of figures it has, none the less, if my memory is correct, risen from 15,000 in 1968 to very nearly 50,000 in the year in which he said we had had a welcome reduction of 4 per cent.

Mr. Steel: I had already said twice that I did not want in any way to be complacent about the levels of crime. What I am saying is that it is not all bad news. The fact that there has been


a slight downturn is something to which we ought to give greater prominence.
Another major fear, which explains the concern in the other place and here on the part of Members outside Scotland, is that this measure could turn out to be a sort of Trojan horse for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a fair point to make that the Royal Commission on criminal procedure in England and Wales, which is about to report, has been doing far more detailed and thorough research than has been available to us in Scotland. For that reason also, this is a particularly unfortunate time to be bringing forward these two proposals.
We oppose them in principle. I shall leave the discussion of the detailed parts of the Bill to the Committee or Report stages but I wish to indicate the strong opposition of myself and my colleagues to the two provisions contained in part I.

Mr. Alex Pollock: It is safe to say that the people of Scotland will be looking at Parliament with a very critical eye and listening with a very critical ear to our discussions on this Bill. We are debating the Bill at a time when there is a very real sense of disquiet among the Scottish people about society's capacity, through its legal institutions, to combat crime. Here I would, with respect, immediately take issue with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). It is a constant theme in my constituency, and I believe that the Scottish public are most anxious to ensure that Parliament can preserve that fundamental balance that weighs the detection and conviction of the truly guilty against the innocent individual and the public at large.
It is generally accepted that the Bill represents the most important change in Scottish criminal law for many years. Its radical basis is highlighted by the fact that it contrasts sharply with much of the tradition of the Scottish criminal law and its development, which has relied hitherto largely on evolution through court decisions rather than imposed statutory change. For that reason, if for no other, it is of vital importance that Parliament is seen to address its collective mind with the utmost care to the changes proposed, so that the people of Scotland do not feel that the Bill is being foisted

upon them without the fullest possible public debate.
Much of that critical analysis must await the Committee stage, but perhaps on Second Reading I may be allowed to sound a word or two of caution. As a comparatively new Member, I have had to get used to the pressures of the lobby and the pressure group on a wide variety of topics. Some draw attention to the possible dangers of impending legislation. Others wait until the Committee stage before they fire off the full range of their artillery. Sadly, and to my mind suspiciously, in the case of this Bill many opponents did neither. Instead, they chose to assert to me their total opposition to the Bill and its contents well before they had even been published. Such attacks demean the quality of informed opposition and do little to bring about informed discussion about this major piece of legislation, for, if opponents are prepared to condemn without examination, what weight is properly to be given to their perhaps orchestrated anxieties? I venture to suggest that it is very little indeed.
For my part, as a member of the Scots Bar, much of whose practice has been spent in both prosecuting and defending in the Scottish criminal courts, I do not intend to follow blindly the Government's advice. I shall not give it any automatic Pavlovian response. Instead, I intend to base my judgment upon my own convictions based on experience in the Scottish courts, and I shall pay little attention, if any, to the blandishments of the pressure groups to which I have already referred.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, for example, in his advice to me, that I should disregard the brief which I received today from the Glasgow Bar Association?

Mr. Pollock: I would advise the hon. Gentleman that in the case of the brief of the Glasgow Bar Association he would be well advised to hasten very slowly, as perhaps that association ought to have done.
I turn to the main provisions of the Bill. I think that I can safely assert that much of what it contains will be regarded as non-contentious and, indeed, wholly beneficial. The most obvious example is perhaps the reform of the stated case


procedure dealing with summary appeals. Over the years it has been recognised on all sides that that is the most unsatisfactory vehicle for allowing appeal to he brought to a higher court. It has caused embarrassment to the client, to counsel and to the bench. I cannot believe that the proposed reforms will be anything but welcome to both sides of the House.
It would be difficult to maintain too spirited an opposition to the revival of the judicial examination as part of criminal procedure. Scotland, unlike its southern counterpart, does not have the doctrine of habeas corpus. Instead, it relies upon an accused person being brought before a court at the earliest possible opportunity. In recent times the first appearance has been largely formal. It is now intended to revive the importance of that first appearance, and I believe that that can do nothing hut good. It affords the defence a genuine opportunity to lay the groundwork for a defence of substance that can be adduced at the subsequent trial. That can only benefit the true administration of justice.
As hon. Members from the Bar and those who are solicitors will know, in the past a defence has been able far too often to sit back with arms folded. It waits to see the strength of the prosecution's case. The defence need not give a single clue about its attitude to the case until the case is so well advanced that it has seen most of the prosecution's hand. The defence may then choose to plead alibi, incrimination or accident. Such tactics do the cause of justice nothing but harm.
It is preferable that the court should know as soon as possible the line of defence that an accused person intends to take. That is to the good of the truly innocent and allows the defence of alibi, accident and so on to be established at the earliest opportunity. The truly innocent accused can be seen to have given a consistent account from shortly after arrest until the trial diet itself. That is likely to carry more weight with the jury than does the present haphazard and lazy system.
Equally important for the sake of public confidence is the opportunity for an accused person to comment at a reasonably early stage on what is some-

times described as "extra-judicial confessions". These are allegedly made by the defendant to the police well in advance of the trial. Anyone connected with the defence of accused persons in Scotland will be able to recall cases where, as the preparation for a trial proceeded, the accused was reminded by his counsel or solicitor of confessions or statements that he was purported to have made to the police. They may recall that the defendant made no adverse comment. When the trial came and the prosecution evidence had been given, the defendant still made no criticism of those statements.
It is often only when the accused is in the witness box that, in desperation, he starts to cast aspersions on the quality of police evidence. In the interests of justice, that is no time for such an attack to be mounted. It does little good to the accused, to the police or to the innocent public at large. I therefore welcome this measure as it seeks to provide an early opportunity for a statement of the accused's case to be made before an independent sheriff.
One of the provisions that seems to have caused hysterical outbursts in certain quarters is that of the right to search for offensive weapons. It is alleged that that would exacerbate ill feeling between the police and the public. I assure the House that it will not be resented by the ethnic and innocent majority of my constituents who are law-abiding and who do not carry weapons. They are greatly alarmed by the increasing habit, especially among young people, of carrying such weapons almost as a matter of course.

Mr. Buchan: Did we hear aright when we heard the hon. Gentleman refer to the "ethnic" members of his constituency? What is he trying to suggest? Is he suggesting that it would be OK if they were black? Did he mean "ethnic"?

Mr. Pollock: The hon. Gentleman may not have listened too closely to earlier contributions. Strong hints were given by some Opposition Members that this power was open to abuse and might lead to harassment of certain ethnic minorities. I speak for the majority of my constituents—an ethnic majority as it happens, although I make no point about that—who are innocent law-abiding citizens. They are not in the habit of carrying weapons.


This measure is seen by them as a welcome indication of the Government's intention to act forcibly on their manifesto pledge to improve the fight against crime in Scotland.
If any hon. Member is sceptical about that assertion, he should go to a typical High Court trial in Scotland. He should listen to the usual evidence given by witnesses in any run-of-the-mill trial for assault. One of the most striking features of such trials is the youthfulness of the accused and the frequency with which weapons, such as knives, are carried. A tragic sequence of events is unfolded almost daily in those courts. A young person may go out to a dance and casually pick up a knife from the kitchen of his house on the way out. Some hours later, full of drink, he may indulge in a mad assault on a person known or unknown to him. Given that sequence of events, the stop and search provisions are understandable and defensible.
Far too often an incident that without the use of weapons would have amounted to a run-of-the-mill breach of the peace escalates into a tragic High Court trial of great significance, merely because of some unthinking youngster knows that it is the done thing among his colleagues to go out at the weekend with a weapon up their sleeves or in their denim trousers. When followed by drink, that can result in tragedy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: One of the aspects of the stop and search clause that bothers us is the circumstances in which the police may exercise that power. The Bill makes clear that there is supposed to be reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. The hon. Gentleman described a set of circumstances in which someone goes out from the house, casually picks up a knife from the kitchen on his way to a dance, later becomes drunk and uses it. How does this clause stop that man from being involved in an offence? Perhaps the police are being given powers to carry out random searches, for example in a dance hall. That does not constitute reasonable suspicion of an individual. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain precisely how this clause can affect the individual in the circumstances that he has described and so prevent crime.

Mr. Pollock: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) should bear in mind that for many of our young

people a Friday or Saturday night's entertainment can stretch over a long period. They may leave the house at six or seven o'clock in the evening on their own. If they happen to meet a police constable, it would be hard for the constable to justify a case of stop and search. As the hon. Gentleman must know, the normal pattern is for individuals to meet a number of their cronies. They will drink in one pub for an hour and perhaps move on to another for further hours of heavier and heavier drinking. By 10 o'clock the individual will probably be with a crowd of his colleagues—some might call it a gang. His courage will be bolstered by drink and camaraderie and he will join in shouting gang slogans and songs. If such a crowd is seen by a policeman to be behaving in an aggressive way en route to a disco at 11.30 pm, that is a different picture from the one portrayed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He is suggesting that the police would regard it as right to stop and search a number of people who were being boisterous.

Mr. Pollock: I said being aggressive.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will define "aggressive". He says that being aggressive involves shouting gang slogans and singing songs. I am trying to establish at what stage the police will consider that there is ground to suspect that somebody is carrying a weapon.

Mr. Pollock: A policeman will take steps on the basis that he will, if necessary, have to satisfy a court that he had reasonable grounds. Such grounds are as various as the inhabitants of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In a short speech, it is impossible to itemise all circumstances. However, no court of law will have difficulty in establishing a definition. Anything that seeks to anticipate trouble rather than to allow the trouble to happen is welcome.
From listening to some of the critics one would imagine that the de quo of criminal law reform is whether it maintains good relations between the police and the public. Judging by some of the criticisms, it appears that the Bill's opponents are more concerned with the criminal public than with the law-abiding public. If the critics manage to maintain


successfully their vociferous and often ill-informed criticism, good relations among the criminal element will be preserved. They will be able to laugh all the way to the pub, all the way to the disco and back, free from the fear of lawful search. That method of approach does not commend itself to the decent majority. Most people want active steps to be taken by the Government to give the police realistic powers to do a fair job.
Of course there is a risk of abuse, but that risk is greater if the police are not given the proper tools for the maintenance of law and order. In the Bill the Government are seeking to give the police proper tools. I have no doubt that the courts will make it their business to ensure that the tools are used strictly. If the police have the right tools, society can be assured that they have the means at last to tackle the cancer of crime which has affected so much of our society for such a long time. For those reasons I commend the measure, in broad terms, to the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: It is unfair of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) to ascribe tender feelings toward the criminal element to those who oppose the Bill. I have no qualms about crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill. On the basis that warfare is too serious to be left to soldiers, it is apparent that civil liberties are too serious to be left to lawyers.
At the time of the clearances in Ross-shire, the law was always on the side of the landlord. There was a saying "Look out for yourself, the law has come to Ross-shire." If the Bill is passed in its present form, the people of Scotland will be saying "Look out for yourself, the law has come to Scotland."
The Secretary of State accused the Bill's opponents of not having read it or of being unaware of the present practice north and south of the Border. I do not see what that has to do with it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) told a Scottish lawyer a few weeks ago that he was ignorant of the law of England. As was said at the time, there is no greater obligation on a Scottish lawyer to be learned in the law

of England than in the law of Brazil. It cannot be argued that because a certain law exists in England, Scottish law should fall into line with it. That is the least convincing argument.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The right hon. Gentleman turns tartan. It is a precept, even of the law of Scotland, that a citizen is presumed to know what the law is. The right hon. Gentleman is in England.

Mr. Stewart: I regret that. I hope to have the Solicitor-General's assistance in acquiring my permanent return ticket as soon as possible.
It would be an imposition to detain the House on a clause-by-clause examination of the Bill in a Second Reading debate. I accept that some clauses are necessary and useful. I shall identify the areas which I find most objectionable. The proposed new police powers have received most attention, but other aspects of the Bill require comment and involve the liberty of the subject.
In justification of the Bill, the Secretary of State said that Scotland's prison population was higher than that of many other countries. I have no doubt that it is, and many of us find that offensive and unnecessary. I cannot be accused of being soft with criminals, but many prisoners are serving sentences for minor offences.
The Bill involves a radical extension of police powers. It therefore creates a risk for civil liberty and good police-community relations. The House must examine carefully, and reject where necessary, clauses which jeopardise the rights of free men in a free society. Lord Mansfield said that clauses 1 to 4 had received attention because of the misguided assertions of various vociferous groups and individuals in Scotland. I am glad that there are vociferous groups and individuals. It is a truism that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In our desire to reduce crime and to apprehend and punish criminals, we must avoid throwing out the valuable safeguards for innocent persons that form a vital part of our law.
Clause 2 deals with detention and questioning. According to the clause, detention begins only when the person has been taken
to a police station or other premises".


There is a possibility of abuse by way of undue delay in the taking. If so minded, the police could take a considerable time in reaching a police station. The Law Society of Scotland recommends that detention should begin at the moment of requirement at the locus of the crime.
The principle of detention is repugnant in itself. Detention, as distinct from arrest, is a new concept in Scottish law. The question of four hours or six hours is irrelevant. What redress is there for wrongful detention? The clause removes the existing remedy. The Bill's supporters claim that the clause clarifies a grey area. It is widely accepted that the police use such powers now. The Thomson Committee virtually recognised this by stating;
Inviting persons to police stations should be regularised.
The remedy is not to allow the police to make their own law but to see that the existing law is maintained.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an important point. Since the case of Hartley some 14 months ago, the law of Scotland, approved by the appeal court, is that the police can detain for uncontrolled periods without creating unfairness in regard to any confession that a detained person might make. We are not talking about applying laws or regulations at present. We are looking at existing laws that allow this to happen legally and asking whether that should be regularised. That is what the Bill tries to do.

Mr. Stewart: That is exactly the point. The Government propose to change the law according to the way the police want it. The Government are falling into line.
To clause 3, dealing with the right to have someone informed when arrested or detained, there should be added the requirement that that person should be informed at the start of his detention that he has this right, conferred by this part of the Bill. There should be no distinction between those who are expert in knowing their rights and those who are not.
Clauses 32 and 33, dealing with schedules 2 and 3, attempt genuine improvements by facilitating retrials where there is fresh evidence. But the clauses give so general a power to order retrial

that the concept of the "tholed assize" is to all intents and purposes abolished. As the Law Society of Scotland memorandum comments,
It is offensive to natural justice to put a man in peril twice for the same offence.
There are other points in the Bill such as the trial proceeding in the absence of the accused, the juror challenge, the fingerprinting and the searches, all of which are offensive and should not be accepted by the House. It has been suggested that, since people are searched before boarding an aircraft, the search is an innocuous and accepted development. That is ridiculous. If I objected to being searched before travelling by air, I could go by sea. There is a choice. No one feels diminished by undergoing a search, because everyone is in the same boat. They understand the reason. It is entirely different when a person is picked up off the street. If Conservative Members think that this proposal will make for good relations with the police, they delude themselves. Nothing will create more "aggro" than that single clause. The Government should be warned.
In an article in The Scotsman today, Professor F. H. McClintock and colleagues from the department of criminology at Edinburgh university put the matter of the Bill into perspective. The article says:
It cannot be emphasised enough that the police depend upon public co-operation, not only in tracking down criminals … but even in the elementary task of assenting generalised order. It is always authority and not force which allows them to function.
That is a lesson that the Bill ignores. I hope that in Committee the good will be retained and the bad parts of the Bill summarily rejected.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I fear that I cannot support my Government in the Lobby tonight, but this is not because there is anything in the Bill that I find offensive. After the brilliantly clear exposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I feel more friendly towards it than when I entered the Chamber. The reason why I cannot support the Government is that something very important is omitted from the Bill or, at any rate, omitted from the speech of the Secretary of State.
The Thomson report admits, like all of us, that the police must be given greater powers, particularly to question those whom they have not yet arrested and to try to persuade the accused person to disclose his defence at an earlier stage. But even those matters that may be said to impinge on the so-called right to silence should be counterbalanced if the tilt is not to be too great in favour of police powers. The questions of the police and the answers of the accused should be recorded and preserved so that the recordings cannot be interfered with. We are told that there is no need for such a provision in the Bill and that inquiries into ways and means are proceeding administratively.
We have had some experience of this kind of situation south of the border. We have been told for eight years that experiments are proceeding. In those eight long years, there has been not a sign of any sort of fruit of these experiments. There is no doubt, from the arguments used from time to time against the taping and recording of questioning by the police, that the arguments are so derisory as to question the sincerity of those who put them. It is for these rough and cynical reasons that I have come to the conclusion that the police authorities do not wish to see a system of recording introduced and are dragging their feet. Until there is greater promise of a secure and efficient system of recording being produced in evidence, it seems to me that, in the balance that has to be struck between the liberty of the subject and police powers, the police powers should not be increased until the police have shown themselves to be more willing for there to be recording of confessions and interviews—the "verbals" as they are called.
It is said that this is an expensive operation. So it is. To record the procedure and to keep the tapes is an expensive operation. But the expense is trivial compared with the time that is spent in the courts of justice, certainly south of the border and, I dare say, north, in challenging the verbals. The judge power, the witness power, the Bar power and the solicitor power that is occupied, sometimes day after day, in challenging the record in the police notebook or whatever is the case goes on. Nothing is more expensive than court time. I would

have thought that every police station or every magistrates' court could be supplied, according to the system that is adopted, with the latest system of videotapes that are superior to the former tapes for reasons that will be obvious to hon. Members. The whole apparatus could be supplied to every police station in exchange, I would guess, for one day of the time of the criminal courts of the United Kingdom.
I do not question the sincerity of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I am sure that they are as keen as Lord Thomson and as keen as my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, eight years ago, revealed to us that these experiments were taking place in England, but we have heard practically nothing about them since then. The Executive—this is one Executive whether for Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland—must tell the police and those who have undertaken to produce the fruits of this experiment to show us some of those fruits. Not until that is done in a substantial form will I be able to support any increase in police powers whether north or south of the border.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I wish to confine my detailed comments to clauses 66 to 75. Many hon. Members will recall that I was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian), when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, to chair a working party on football crowd behaviour. It is fair to say that, when the report was published about a year afterwards, the response was very favourable indeed. Indeed, everyone connected with football wrote and said that it was a workable and practical solution. Having said that, I should point out that it has been an embarrassment to see my name associated with certain clauses of a Conservative Government Bill, and I hope that that is not misunderstood outside the House.
I never claimed that the report would in any way be a panacea. It was accepted that the working party made some practical and far-reaching recommendations, some of which have still to be implemented. I am conscious of this problem


if for no other reason than that a young teenager who lives in my constituency is at present fighting for his life in a Glasgow hospital. At a recent match between Rangers and Celtic he was struck by a can, as a result of which his life is seriously at risk.
It is obvious to those who follow football reports that at the two Scottish Cup semi-finals on Saturday last many people were injured as a result of flying cans and bottles. Indeed, I read that at one match more than 100 arrests took place. That is bound to give cause for concern.
Those of us who attend football matches are conscious that youngsters tend to stand at the front of the terracing. The obnoxious thing is that people who throw cans tend to fill them with urine and attempt to throw them at the referee, whom they will never reach. Inevitably, the cans fall at the front of the terracing or hit a policeman who is walking around the terracing. That is where the damage is caused, mostly to young people.
I read with great interest the debates in the other place, in which various Law Lords tried to define a "controlled container". Many arguments and views were advanced. For example, it was felt that hip flasks should be allowed into the grounds. Not many of my constituents attend football matches and take hip flasks with them. While I have no objection to the carrying of a hip flask, it is still a weapon by any legal definition. I am conscious of the difficulty of finding a definition of "container" which will get round many of the problems that were outlined in another place.
However, it is not the hip flask which causes the trouble. The damage is caused by bottles and cans, something of which the working party was extremely conscious. We took evidence from almost everyone connected with football—from the players, the managers, the referees, the club stewards, the ambulance corps, the trade unions, the coach operators and the three police organisations. Almost everyone, including the media, was consulted and gave either oral or written evidence as to how the problem should be tackled. We did not forget the punter, as he is known in Scotland—the ordinary football supporter. Oral evidence was taken from several punters, especially some who had been in trouble. Therefore, the working party made great attempts

to understand the problem, and I believe that the composition of the working party indicated that those who served on it were extremely knowledgeable about football and its problems.
During the past few months, as I anticipated this Bill coming onto the Floor of the House and as I thought about the report, I found myself re-examining the question of the sale of alcohol in football grounds. I have recently visited some English grounds, the last of which was at West Ham in London. There one can have a carton of beer or lager in a plastic or paper cup, which seems quite civilised. I do not see why that cannot happen in Scotland. Indeed, paragraph 36 of the working party report stated that after a period of time—it is now three years since that report was first published—we might consider the sale of beer or lager in a controlled way, with the clubs taking responsibility. Such a proposal could be supervised by the police in its early stages.
The clauses to which I am referring dwell strongly on the problem of alcohol at football games. In my experience, it is not really beer or whisky which causes the problem. Indeed, there was one notable occasion when I took Scottish Office officials on to the terracing at a Rangers-Celtic match. As they had never been at a football match, let alone a Rangers-Celtic match, it was quite an experience for them. Rigor mortis almost set in before the first half had finished. Nevertheless, although they gave advice to me as a Minister from their own knowledge, their knowledge was incomplete.
As I said, it is not the beer or whisky which is the problem. Rather, it is the cheap wine which is sold in great amounts, particularly in the area that I represent. One wine in particular, called Lanliq, has a strong potency. If there is one particular alcoholic liquor which causes the problem at football matches, and vandalism and crime in the evening, it is that wine. It is potent and cheap. It looks like whisky when sold across the counters or in off-licences. It is something about which I have been concerned for a considerable time.
We should do something about the problem of cheap wine and the beverages, such as cider, which are mixed with it. It drives young people crazy, and often they are not aware of what they are


doing when they start throwing missiles and cause so much damage. That is something of which the Committee might take account.
The clubs themselves have a responsibility. All too often many choose to ignore the problem. They are concerned about their League placing or Cup position and not so much about the problem within their grounds. I am pleased to say that in recent times a number of clubs have started to take steps. I mention only two. Rangers and Aberdeen are spending a lot of money on the installation of seating, which I believe will go some way towards helping the police identify those who may misbehave in the way that I have described. Others, including Mr. Desmond White, the chairman of Celtic, have recently taken a strong stand in respect of those fans who misbehaved abroad. I think particularly of the recent match in Spain.
Clauses 67, 68 and 69 relate mostly to fans travelling on coaches to and from football matches. The working party met the coach operators, and they were extremely keen for some legislation to be enacted in order that their coaches could be protected from unruly fans. However, from my reading of the debates in the other place, I am also conscious that the driver of such a coach could be at risk. After all, it is his livelihood and job.
I welcome clause 69, which is a change from the earlier Bill, and some credit is due to the noble Lords who referred to the future employment prospects of coach drivers. However, I believe that that clause must be further strengthened in the interests of the driver. He is placed in a most invidious position. For example, when a coach leaves a local pub to go to a football match, as they so often do, drink is on board but the driver spots it only when he is half-way down the motorway or on a main road. It is difficult for the driver, placed in that invidious position, particularly if some fans have already consumed a fair amount of liquor. We must guarantee the future of those drivers.
Clause 68 is drafted in a misleading way. Having read it twice, I am still not clear what it means. Under section 92 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, it is still legal to carry six pints of alcoholic

liquor in a container. That Act has not been repealed. There is an ambiguous situation whereby it is possible to stop football fans boarding a coach and yet at the same time it is possible for other people to carry six pints of alcohol with them in a container. I hope that the Minister will clear that point up.
Will the Secretary of State be more precise about what is meant by the designation of football grounds? Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to designate the ground or the event? There could be enormous problems in this context. I am pleased that the provisions of the Bill are not confined to football stadiums. We are now seeing in rugby the growth of those problems from which football has suffered. I hope for more precise details on the issue of designation from the Secretary of State.
Because of falling attendances at Hampden Park, semi-finals of the Scottish Cup are attended by fewer than 20,000 people at a ground that can hold well over 100,000.
The message that should get through to club managers is that fewer youngsters are going to football matches. Fathers are not taking their children to matches. Youngsters are the seed corn of the next generation of football supporters, and if clubs are to be able to pay high salaries and bonuses to their players they must be assured of good attendances. If a youngster does not attend football matches, my experience tells me that he will not start attending in his twenties or thirties. I hope that football management will catch on to that fact.
I also hope that the media will examine the Bill carefully, because if it is to be successful it depends to a great extent on the media. I believe that the media in the past have been facetious and sometimes dishonest in reporting football matches. Because we have learnt to distrust the media in its dealings with so many other things, that does not mean that it is not free to comment on the game as it wishes. However, I wish that football commentators would sometimes be more accurate.
As a former chairman of the Glasgow magistrates, it was my job to comment on crowd disturbances after a Rangers-Celtic match and on how many people had been arrested for drink and other offences. On an occasion at Celtic Park


I said that the crowd had been the best behaved in my experience at such a match. That was because only nine people had been arrested. I was not told that a great fight was in progress outside the ground. A few days later I was watching a television programme called "What the Papers Say". That programme quoted my remarks, saying that Glasgow's senior magistrate had spoken of the best behaved football crowd ever. A caption was then displayed pointing out that 296 people had been arrested. I would, therefore, hope that the media will have some regard for factual reporting. If they do not, those who have responsibilities in this context can be caused embarrassment.
The fans and the clubs are being presented with a challenge. In the days in Glasgow when public houses were called sawdust pits, I, as chairman of the licensing justices, told applicants for licences that if they would put carpets on the floors of their public houses and raise the standard of amenities I would be generous in granting licences. In my constituency the raising of standards in public houses has encouraged better behaviour. I believe, therefore, that it would be wrong to put restrictions on football fans, because 95 per cent. of them are well behaved.
Of course, I realise that there is a serious problem. But three years after the publication of the report on football crowd behaviour I think that it is time to put the challenge to club managements and licensing authorities. We should say that we are willing to try a controlled experiment in the sale of beer and lager at football grounds—as is done in England—and put fans on their honour. We cannot guarantee instant success but we must present a challenge to the ordinary fans—as well as to those who do not behave well—and make the football grounds more attractive. We should not implement any restrictions until we have given the fans a chance of savouring conditions that are commonplace in England at many sporting events.
Although I give a qualified welcome to the clauses to which I have referred in some detail, I believe that other clauses in the Bill will damage relations between the police and the public. Some of those clauses threaten civil liberties, and for those reasons I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that at 7 pm the 10-minute rule will apply. Therefore, any hon. Member who is called before 7 pm will, I trust, understand that he may not speak for more than 10 minutes after 7 pm.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I will take careful account of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in this matter. I say that out of respect for all the hard work he has done and the hours he has spent studying this subject. I understand that much of his work was done on the spot and I am sure that the House is grateful.
This is a Bill of great complexity and is a major attempt to bring the criminal law of Scotland up to date. It is impossible in a debate such as this to deal with all the specific principles which arise as a result of the provisions of the Bill. For that reason, I shall deal with only a few of them.
The Bill removes some of the glaring anachronisms in our criminal law and applies common sense in their place. I am sure that Opposition Members who are lawyers appreciate as much as I do that once the Bill is passed a miscarriage of justice will become a ground of appeal. At last we will get away from the former complication which meant that we had always to try to fit what, in equity, seemed to be a good ground of appeal into the somewhat restricted definition of grounds of appeal allowed by the law.
For this reason and for many others, I believe that the Bill should be welcomed. I caution Opposition Members who intend to vote against the Bill of the dangers of being seen to throw out the baby with the bath water. As an advocate I have practised, latterly, almost exclusively in the criminal law mostly in Glasgow. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock), I have always practised on the defence side, and I have obviously looked at the Bill with a good deal of interest.
There are certain details of the Bill about which I am doubtful and I hope that this evening or perhaps later some of my doubts will be allayed by my hon. Friend the Minister. I have doubts, for


instance, about reducing the number of peremptory challenges of jurors from five to one. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) made the point—and I agree with him—that this could lead to an increase, if not in jury vetting, at least in the checking of juries.
That will mean an increase in the amount of unnecessary work undertaken by instructing solicitors. The cost of checking through jury lists to make sure that there is nobody who could possibly be biased or prejudiced against a client will clearly increase. My experience shows that the system of having five peremptory challenges to jurors has worked, and it is interesting to note that the Faculty of Advocates seems to take the same view.
I should like to ask about detention. I do not want to go into this matter in detail as it has already been dealt with at considerable length. The question that I should like to ask is one to which the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) seemed to have the answer but which I cannot find in the Bill: when precisely does the period of detention start? It is important that, if the period of detention is to be acceptable, it should have a strict starting and finishing point. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me in that regard tonight.
I am anxious about the removal in another place of the so-called Emslie proposals on sentencing in murder cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also referred to this matter. I have long been worried that, except in exceptional cases of murder, no distinction can be made by a judge in the light of mitigating circumstances, on the one hand, or aggravating circumstances, on the other. Few can defend the present system as the best that we could achieve.
It has always struck me that persons I have seen convicted for murder and sentenced, according to statute, to life imprisonment have often been convinced that that meant about eight years—and often it does. What strikes me is that, in their minds, it is less than, for instance, the great train robbers got, less than many people convicted for robbery or, indeed, of other serious crimes would get. If murder is to remain the most serious crime in the criminal calendar of Scotland, we should recognise it by giving the

judge flexibility to indicate how serious he considers that crime to be. If we seek deterrence to murder and if we wish for justice to be seen to be done, something along those lines must be done.
I wish to speak now about the powers to search in clause 4. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Craigton. I was pleasantly surprised by the moderate tones with which he dealt with this subject, because I have been saddened by some of the tones I have heard in Scotland and in the media over the past few weeks about the Bill. I was interested in what I saw to be the right hon. Gentleman's selective civil libertarianism. If a policeman searches someone for drugs, somehow that does not matter; that will not hurt community relations. If he searches for stolen birds' eggs, which he is entitled to do, that, too, does not create the bad community relations about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking. But when a policeman searches someone for a knife, that is different. I find it difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman can draw that distinction. The only possible way in which that distinction can be made is by suggesting that somehow, because it is knives, the police will use some particular technique of harassment.
If there is to be harassment, I believe that we would have seen it already in the areas about which I have spoken. We would also have seen harassment in the other area where there is great police power—the breathalyser law. Occasionally we hear of some isolated incidents of harassment. But it is dangerous to suggest, as the opponents of the Bill seem constantly to suggest, that the odd, isolated incident means that the police will generally use the new powers as a means of harassing and persecuting the public. I cannot help feeling that some of the criticism that is made against the Bill, and this clause in particular, is politically motivated or, in some cases, motivated by malice.
What is the individual liberty about which we are talking? Is it the right to walk about the streets carrying offensive weapons—often knives? Is the right hon. Member for Craigton saying that the price of good police-public relations is allowing people to walk about the streets of our cities carrying knives? If he believes that that does not happen, he


should sit through a circuit of the Glasgow High Court and listen to the cases that come up: case after case of assault, severe injury, culpable homicide, murder —all with offensive weapons, often knives.
What would strike the right hon. Gentleman most is that in so many of the cases there is no motive for the crime. When the person put the knife into his pocket, he had no intention of using it. It happened to be there when he lost his head or his temper—whether as the result of drink or not—and the incident occurred.
I have no doubt that many youngsters without criminal intent put knives into their pockets as they leave their homes in the evening—not special knives mostly kitchen knives—and when things go wrong, when too much drink has been taken, when the fight starts, the incident happens which results in injury and often death.
I say in all sincerity, especially to those who oppose this measure, that there is no more tragic sight in life than to see two destroyed, ruined young lives at the end of a trial: one, the victim, maimed or often lying dead on a mortuary slab —the photographs of which I have had to study more times than I care to remember—and the other, a young man sentenced to a long spell in gaol with all that means to his future—his life wrecked and behind him often before he reaches the age of 20—all because it happened to be his habit to carry a knife.
We can stop or deter this senseless waste only by putting it into the head of the habitual knife carrier that no longer will he be able to do that without anybody asking questions, except when the incident or the accident has happened. He must understand that in future the occasion may arise when he is searched and something that has never mattered to him in the past will suddenly render him open to punishment and that often he will be punished for it.
Finally, I see the Bill offering constructive powers to help the police to protect the innocent citizen. Obviously all criminal law is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual, on the one hand, and the necessities of justice and the protection of the vulnerable in our society, on the other. Often the vulnerable are the old and the weak who are the unsolicited

victims of violent crime. We on the Government side care about the victims just as much as we mind about the rights of accused persons. We care about the old people who are often mugged and beaten in their own homes for the sake of a few pence. We care about the injured and sometimes dead bodies which result from a Friday night's drinking and brawling. We care in particular about the fear of ordinary people to come to their doors at night or to go out to see their friends because of armed gangs.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Before the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Ancram: I must carry on, because Mr. Speaker told me that I must finish by 10 minutes past seven.
I put all this side into the balance of rights in the Bill. Then I ask one final question: have the innocent anything to fear from the Bill? A detailed look at the Bill shows that the answer is a resounding "No." But the guilty or potential criminals have something to fear under the Bill, because it will make it easier for them to be apprehended and convicted. If an argument is needed for supporting the Bill, I believe that argument is as strong as any.

Mr. Norman Buchan: This is a serious Bill. I regret that the aspects that have given rise to serious concern in many areas of Scotland have been dealt with in a flippant and dangerous way by the Government Front Bench and by some Conservative Members. To refer to the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, the entire criminology department of Edinburgh university and others as being irresponsible, hysterical and politically motivated suggests that the Conservative Party has not understood the seriousness of this legislation.
I wish to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). He referred to the Emslie report. I do not believe that the judges of Scotland have been anointed with the wisdom of the Lord by oil descending from the high heavens. I suspect their judgments all too frequently. We could consider some of the recent judgments south of the border—for example, those of Lord Denning. No sooner does he make a judgment than it is reversed by a court of appeal. Yet the hon.


Gentleman says that this sort of judge should have the right to decide the length of a sentence for murder. If we give that power to the judges, we are severely pushing back the clock.
The Bill would still retain the right for a judge to make a recommendation. I would rather leave it to other people to decide on the length of time that should be served following a sentence of life imprisonment. It is no use comparing such a sentence to some of the judgments on offences against property, for example, the Matt Lygate case. We know that often those who occupy the bench pay higher regard to offences against property than to offences against the person.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South made a defence of the Bill on the ground that he is against crime. That is no defence. He is telling us that he is against sin. We are delighted to know that the chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland is against sin. However, it is hardly a defence of specific proposals in the Bill.
We have been told that those who oppose the Bill are ignorant and hysterical and that they have no expert knowledge because they are not suffering by living in the housing schemes in which these crimes take place. Of course, the same is true of the Government. They have not had that direct experience. It is unworthy of any Front Bench Member, let alone a Scottish Office spokesman, to make such a statement.
I have held a self-denying ordinance since Christmas because I wished to speak at length on the Bill. I now find myself trapped—it is like the poverty trap—to making a speech of 10 minutes. Therefore, I can deal only with one or two issues.
There is a significant difference between the Bill and the previous Labour Bill regarding the powers of search. I think that the Labour Bill was also a bad Bill in respect of the first few clauses. I opposed the detention powers.
The real progenitor of the powers of search is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Southend, East".] I am sorry, I meant the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). A transfiguration has taken place. It is like Hamlet without the

Prince of Denmark. It was from the hon. Gentleman's playing of the tough card—which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has repeated tonight in that those who wanted tough action were those concerned with law and order—that the powers of search arose.
The Times today—also perhaps hysterical, ill advised and ignorant—said that police organisations have not asked for such powers in their evidence to the Thomson committee. The provisions arise from the demands of the hon. Member for Southend, East in his previous incarnation as the hon. Member for Cathcart.
The provisions on the powers of search have not answered the significant question "Why are the powers necessary?" The 1953 Act provides powers of arrest where there is reasonable cause to believe that an offensive weapon is being carried. If the Government wish to extend those powers in another way, we must ask why. The answer is given in The Scotsman by more illiterate, ignorant, and politically motivated people at the department of criminology at Edinburgh university. The article states:
The desired effect is obviously deterrence but to produce this result, to impress upon the individual that if he carries a knife, however inconspicuously, he is really likely to be searched, the police would have to conduct routine and extensive searches on the streets of every large town almost daily.
The side effects of such strong medicine would make the condition more palatable than its cure.
Rather than preventing the incidence of crime, the provisions would have the opposite effect. The reason why I resisted such provisions in the past was not because I was in favour of crime or sin but because I recognised that such a step would be one of the causes of violence.

Mr. Ancram: Does the hon. Gentleman accept these powers when they relate to searching for drugs? It appears from the figures that the searches are working and that the incidence of drugs found as a result of searches has been reduced.

Mr. Buchan: That is not correct. The percentage of drugs discovered after search is very low. The powers of search used in relation to terrorism show a success rate of about 1 per cent. It does not achieve the desired effect.
As I know to my cost through three broken ribs, the main weapon used in mugging is not a carried weapon but the boot, or a bottle if it is at hand. The powers of search could exacerbate the position. Unless practised in permanent frisking, they cannot achieve any noticeable effect.
The spurious argument in comparison with drugs and the argument that we all accept the powers of search in relation to aircraft are completely dishonest. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, we have other choices. We do not need to travel by aircraft if we object to the powers of search. We can travel by train or boat. When he suggested that, hon. Members seemed to find it funny. They forget that he represents the Western Isles.
When we buy an airline ticket, we enter into a contract knowing that we will be subject to search. There are two points here that should be borne in mind. First, we have voluntarily entered into that contract and, secondly, the search is not discriminatory. We are all subjected to that. Surely we are not suggesting that everyone walking along Sauchiehall Street will be frisked. We know what would happen. The frisking would be against the young. They would eventually react. It is that reaction that will cause the breakdown of relationships between our youngsters and the police. Heaven knows, those relationships are not good at present.
One reason why the relationships are not good is that a lead has been given to those who wish to over-exercise their rights by the presence of an obnoxious and reactionary Government. They are introducing discrimination and are attacking trade union rights. Police are given a lead in that way, although there has already been criticism that they have over-used their powers in action.
I want good police relationships to exist within the community. The Bill will not help that. It will cause crime rather than reduce crime. I quote again from The Scotsman:
It is always authority and not force which allows them to function. Policing in the style of an army of occupation is not only politically unacceptable, it is also"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman has already taken 10 minutes.

Mr. Buchan: If I may finish my quote—
it is also remarkably inefficient".

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am glad to have this opportunity to give a strong welcome to the Bill. I welcome it for one overriding reason. The Bill helps substantially to right the balance in Scotland between the criminal and the law-abiding citizen in favour of the law-abiding citizen. For too long the balance in Scotland has been on the side of the criminal. The Bill at least does something to drag back that balance and to help the innocent.
I wish to concentrate on two areas—first on the stop and search powers and secondly on the detention of a person at a police station or in a constable's presence. Those provisions have been violently, and even viciously, attacked in certain quarters. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to some of the broader areas that have prompted almost political attacks on the Bill. Some of the attacks have come from people who will use almost any opportunity to undermine law and order and to denigrate the police.
Conservative Members accept that some of the attacks have also come from people whom we would normally regard as serious and whom we respect, and they require answers to their questions. I should like to try to give my answer on why the Bill is right and justifiable in principle and practice on the stop and search detention powers.
It has been alleged that to give the police the right to stop and search people in the street is somehow a gross and sinister restriction of the rights of the individual and a derogation of civil liberties. We have never attempted to deny that it is a restriction of the rights of the individual. But the principle upon which we promote it is that by giving the police that right we are infringing a lesser freedom in order to increase a greater freedom. We are infringing the right of the individual to walk in Sauchiehall Street without being stopped and searched, in order that the innocent person can


walk in Sauchiehall Street without the risk of being mugged or assaulted. That is the essential balance and principle that clause 4 seeks to embody. The Government have talked a great deal about increasing the freedom of the individual, and there are few more important freedoms of the individual than the freedom from crime and attack. That is why the Bill is not only a part of all the legal Bills that we have put forward—the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Bill, and so on—but is part of the wider policy of the Government to increase the freedom of the individual in as many aspects of society as possible.
In a Bill such as this, there is a price to pay. The price is that people can be stopped and searched for weapons. Most people are prepared to pay that price. Most people are keen to pay the price if the result of people being stopped and searched for weapons is that other, innocent people can go about their law-abiding business in greater freedom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I heard the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) earlier, which were answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock).
The Government have a sound case in principle—the principle that a lesser freedom is decreased in order to increase a greater freedom. That is the substantial principle upon which the Government rest their case. It is not simply a sound case in principle. It is a sound case in precedent and in present practice. My hon. Friends have already mentioned that all hon. Members agree to be searched when they board an aeroplane. Visitors to the House agree to be searched before they enter. The principle of people being searched for offensive weapons is apparently acceptable. However, some hon. Members say that there is a difference between being searched before boarding an aeroplane and being searched in the streets.
Even that fine distinction has been breached. A person can be searched in the street at random if the police believe that they have reason for suspicion. If the police suspect a person of carrying a bird's egg of a protected species, of possessing drugs or carrying alcohol in a football ground, they now have the right

to search. Therefore, both in principle and in practice, the House has already conceded the point. It is sheer hypocrisy for Labour Members to try to pretend that the Government are now concocting some monstrous infringement of liberty and human rights. On many occasions in the past the House has accepted the principle and the practice. The key fact that cannot be denied is that no innocent person will suffer because of the stop and search powers. On the contrary, innocent people will gain.
With regard to detention, surely, in the perspective of rising lawlessness and the seriousness of crime, it cannot be said that it is a gross infringement of human liberty to be stopped and asked for a name and address. It cannot be regarded as a gross infringement that a person detained at a police station has to give his fingerprints. I cannot imagine why anyone who is innocent should be afraid of so doing—particularly when the fingerprints are destroyed afterwards. I cannot understand why certain Labour Members should object to these proposals, particularly when fingerprinting might quickly establish the innocence of a person who is detained.
It cannot be practical to leave the law of Scotland in such a state that the only way in which the police can question or detain a suspect is by bluff, improper threats, irregularities or by arresting and charging the person. That cannot be a practical way of dealing with such incidents as a fracas in a dance hall, and so on. The Bill puts forward a practical and sensible solution which, in my opinion, does not infringe any human right. It will increase the human rights of the majority of people in Scotland because it will enable the truly guilty to be prosecuted more easily, and it will help the truly innocent to go about their law-abiding business more freely.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Much of the criticism of the Bill may lead the House and the Scottish public to believe that the Bill has been hastily cobbled together and that it is a deliberately repressive and anti-civil libertarian measure. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a statutory consolidation of more than a decade's work on both the criminal procedure in Scotland and the substance of the criminal law. It is


imperative that as the Bill proceeds through the House those extravagant claims by such politically motivated bodies—I use the term with no regret—as the Stop the Bill Campaign be exploded.
The core of the Bill is to be found in the Thomson committee reports. It is worth reminding the House that the committee was first appointed by a Lord Advocate, Lord Wilson of Langside, as long ago as January 1970, reporting, as the Secretary of State indicated, as far back as 1972 and then principally in October 1975. Although the Thomson report is the core of the Bill and has a certain patina of age, the recommendations of other eminent reports have also been included.
All questions of civil liberty must be resolved essentially on a determination of the proper balance between the rights of individuals brought before the courts and the rights of other individuals to be protected from those who break the law. It is neither repressive nor tyrannical to propose that the protection of law-abiding citizens from crime is a fundamental duty of any society. That being so, the essential balance requires adjustment from time to time. I believe that both lawyer and non-lawyer in Scotland would agree that there is a correct time to adjust that balance, whichever way one feels it needs adjusting. The balance has shifted, but it by no means requires legislation in only one direction.
It may surprise the House that almost 10 years ago I gave evidence for the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. I am proud to say that the paper submitted by the council, relating specifically to appeal provisions, found favour with the Thomson committee, the previous Government and this Government.
Surely it cannot be argued that the provisions in the Bill with regard to solemn procedure and stated case procedure are not a substantial advance in the interest of the individual in Scotland. Is it seriously suggested that the defence right to have witnesses cited for precognition is not of substantial benefit to the accused? Is it seriously suggested that the defence right to apply for an identification parade is not again of substantial benefit to the accused?
The proposals to prevent trials being delayed beyond 12 months would be re-

garded as astonishing by legal practitioners in the remainder of the United Kingdom, particularly in London, who are well used to cases going to trial long after 12 months have elapsed. Other details and procedural changes provide for quicker, cheaper and better justice in Scotland. Are they not in the interests of the individual?
If all else in the Bill fails, one provision is more important than any other—the provision in clause 19 that allows the defence to put forward a plea of no case to answer and, if that fails, still to have the right to lead evidence. That has been a substantial omission in the law of Scotland, which breached the fundamental principle that at all stages the Crown should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
All such provisions are conveniently ignored by those who oppose the Bill, who stated in a publication that in the Bill
The rights of the individual are conveniently forgotten in the name of expediency.
I find that incomprehensible. They must have a selective capacity for analysis that is dumbfounding.
The major attack on the Bill is in regard to the earlier provisions. I shall deal with only two. First, with regard to judicial examination, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that the Thomson report did not put judicial examination forward as an instrument of repression or to further the aims of the police or prosecution. It gave three main reasons why judicial examination should be revived in Scotland, two of which are for the substantial benefit of the defence. The Thomson committee thought that it would advance the interests of the individual in legal process. It is not a novel process in Scotland and is in no way part of a deliberately repressive policy.
On the subject of detention, my greatest criticism of the Thomson committee is that it wrongly adopted the pejorative term "detention" rather than "temporary arrest", which it began to use. The phrase "temporary arrest" is more sensibly understood and does not have an emotive connotation.
Although the members of the Thomson committee disagreed on other matters, they were unanimous on the introduction


of a six-hour period of detention. We should first consider whether the police are entitled to ask questions as part of their investigations. If they are, they should have the opportunity to question suspected persons, with the accompanying right to invite, them to police stations.
So far the failing in this debate has been that we have concentrated on posable irregularities in police procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) pointed out, the appeal court in Scotland stated that, on the standard test of what is fair to the accused, a statement obtained by someone just this side of imbecility after 12 hours of questioning was fair. I am therefore astonished that those who oppose the Bill are complacent about the status quo when that is the existing state of the law.
Those who oppose the Bill have not put forward clear alternatives. They have merely asked for a Green Paper. Sheriff Gerald Gordon is the greatest authority on criminal law in Scotland. Are they suggesting that he should reconsider the views that he gave in the Thomson report?
It is suggested that the angels are wholly against detention, and quotations have been produced. I wish to quote one source that has traditionally considered itself to be on the side of civil liberties and the individual. On 31 January, in its leader, The Guardian said:
The issue which needs to he resolved is whether the police have the right to detain someone suspected of an ordinary criminal offence for up to six hours for questioning. The answer to that is: yes—so long as there are adequate safeguards.
I support in outline what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said about tape recordings. I am also pleased that in another place provision about redetention was removed. I hope that the details will be hammered out in Committee, but I warmly support the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will not have failed to notice that I called in succession two hon. Members from the Government Benches. I apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), whom I intended to call. I shall rectify that situation by calling con-

secutively two Members from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) will be alarmed or flattered by being confused with myself.
I believe that we all accept that the Bill is important, but it is a blockbuster of a Bill. It illustrates that big is not always beautiful. I accept that it contains many good clauses and is not a bad Bill in every respect. However, there are a number of key clauses on which I have substantial reservations. The effect of those reservations is cumulative and decisive.
I object to the Bill. It encroaches on civil liberties and is a danger to the ordinary citizen. I shall give three reasons for saying that. One can be found in clause 4, which provides the new powers of search. This is an area of some confusion in my mind, and I look forward in Committee to getting elucidation from Ministers as to exactly what new power—over and above that which already exists in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—this clause would give the police if it came on to the statute book. Whatever the intention, it is very doubtful whether it would be achieved.
As I understand from previous debates in this area, the Government assume that the new clause will allow the police to search when suspicion that an offence has been committed or is being committed has not crystallised upon an individual but is attached to a group—say, the inhabitants of a dance hall or of a public house, or a group walking down the street. If the courts are persuaded that that is a proper interpretation, there is indeed a real danger of harassment arising from it and from that development in police practice.
It may be said that that is an antipolice point or that it is fanciful. Those who think that it is fanciful should refer to the debates on the last Administration's Bill. They will see that the hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Solicitor-General suggested that reasonable suspicion that an offence might be committed would amount to the knowledge that someone one saw on the street had previous convictions.
If that is the kind of advice that may well be going forward, there is a real and substantial fear of harassment. It is an encroachment on civil liberties because of the reintroduction of judicial examination, which I take to be an attack on the right to silence. It is a beguiling and a persuasive idea that a special defence or a comment or an explanation about an alleged extrajudicial confession should be put on record at a very early stage. However persuasive the argument may be, and despite the imprimatur of Thomson, it is wrong because it is an implied attack on the right to silence. If that right is exercised, it is open to almost certainly devastating comment, either by the prosecution or the judge. It cannot be said that a right remains inviolate if the exercising of it will attract such a fatal—or possibly fatal—penalty.
My next point concerning the encroachment of civil liberties relates to the six-hour period of detention, about which we have been arguing here for a very long time. It is not a minor technicality; it is an attack on a basic right. Whatever may have been said in the debate, as I understand the law in Scotland, until the police are in a position to arrest and to charge, a citizen is allowed to go about his ordinary duties unless he is prepared to co-operate in a session of questioning. The fact that that right is often not exercised is not a reason for abolishing it. That is a peculiar and extremely dangerous argument.
The position which can now occur is that someone can be taken to a police station—a place which Lord Cooper, in a famous judgment, once described as a "sinister" venue, where the dice are often seen to be loaded against the suspected person. The object of holding him there is to induce self-incrimination, and that is a very dangerous concept.
The test at the moment is fairness. The provisions in the Bill will make it harder for the courts and the juries to decide when that fairness test has been met. The hon. Member for South Angus mentioned Professor Gerald Gordon, now Sheriff Gordon of Glasgow, who wrote the standard book on criminal procedure. I will give the House a quotation from an article written by him in 1978. He states:

In the absence of any guidelines for juries beyond 'fairness', there is a risk that undesirable police practices will be encouraged, or at least condoned, as means justified by ends and by the good faith of the police in their endeavour to catch criminals. In the heyday of Chalmers a policeman may have been inhibited from pursuing his inquiries because of the knowledge that the court would reject the evidence he obtained; today he will always be well advised to chance his arm to the extent that his own conscience will allow because of the strong likelihood that any relevant evidence will be admitted.
Professor Gordon goes on to say that he has basic doubts about the present state of the law before the Bill reaches the statute book. Those inherent dangers, he points out, will be greatly increased if the Bill reaches the statute book, and my own view is that it is a risk that this House and the Scottish legal system should not run.
I am against the Bill because certain of the clauses seem to be dangerous not only to the public but to the police themselves. I cannot go into this at any great length, but we are, on the question of the power of detention, inviting the police to take to a police station for interrogation someone they think is guilty but against whom they have not sufficient evidence to raise a charge. Quite clearly, they are bringing him there in the hope that they will be able to extract some sort of damaging confession from him.
It is not easy to envisage a six-hour detention with the criminal law equivalent of merely name and number. That would be a position of frustration that would try the patience of a saint. Although I do not have anything but the greatest respect for the police force as a body, I do not believe that they are a body of saints. We may be putting them in a position where abuse may result or in which, equally dangerously, there will be allegations of abuse made against the police. That would be a thoroughly bad thing.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State in charge of the Bill will think very long about the words of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about tape recording. One very simple thing that we could do would be to implement large parts of the Bill, if that is what the House wants, but not this part of it until tape recording is available and is on stream. I give notice that I shall be pushing very hard for that in Committee.
Similarly, from the police point of view, there is the power of search. There is no doubt that that can lead to friction. This is not something that I have dreamt up; it is something that the Thomson committee was very worried about, as is shown in paragraph 3.19, where it states that there
is a fear that this will lead to police harassment of young persons, particularly where such persons have a police record. Some may think that such harassment would be a small price to pay for any reduction on the number of assaults with weapons committed by young persons, but apart from anything else there is a grave risk that any harassment would be counter-pro-ductive in the long nm, since it would lead to increased antagonism to the police.
The point is well taken by the Thomson committee. I am sorry that it was not taken to the logical conclusion. I hope that the House will be prepared to think very hard on that point. There are some very difficult problems, particularly in regard to the younger generation and their relations with the police. I believe that these changes will exacerbate them.
The third and final reason why I have grave doubts and why I oppose the Bill is that it is in some ways unworkable and dangerous for the system. I deal first with the matter of judicial examination. If I go to Glasgow sheriff court and I have a client in custody and he is due to appear at 2 p.m. at 1.30 p.m., I shall not know even whether he is on petition. Almost certainly, I shall not have seen the petition. I shall not know what time is alleged for the offence. I shall not know whether there is any special defence. I shall not have any knowledge of any extra-judicial confessions, because the information will not be available to me. The whole thing is chaos and confusion. It is a Hogarthian scene in these cells, as I know from my professional life. The idea that one can advise a client, take him down a few minutes later into court and guide him through something that will have fundamental importance for his whole defence is impractical nonsense. If we enforce that provision, God help the duty solicitor, and, more important, his client.
I believe that in saying that I would carry with me everyone who is in regular practice in Glasgow sheriff court. I think that I would also have the tacit support of most of the sheriffs, although I cannot claim that, as I have not talked to them.

In the real and practical world, judicial examination cannot be reintroduced effectively, and we shall have to look very carefully at the practical consequences in the life of a jobbing criminal practice in Glasgow before we go forward with these proposals.
This is, of course, an important Bill, but it seems to me to be fundamentally misguided and fundamentally mistaken. There is a tendency to say that there are individual rights and that there are public rights and that they are in conflict and irreconcilable. I do not believe that that is true. At the end of the day, the overriding and most important right is to have a legal system which embraces us all and a legal system which gives proper and perhaps particular protection to those small and unfortunate groups who are at risk of the law and who are under suspicion. If we encroach upon their protection, we impoverish ourselves, because we all have an interest in making sure that the law is impartial and that it helps those who are in trouble. The Bill at least encroaches to a dangerous extent on those principles, and that is why I shall vote against it.

Mr. John Maxton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I find it difficult to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you thought that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat was speaking from the Opposition Benches.
Those of us who are opposed to some parts of the Bill have been accused of being hysterical and ignorant. I am sure that those who have made such accusations from the Government Benches have directed them partly at my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and myself. It is true that we oppose certain parts of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) accused us of throwing the baby out with the bath-water in our opposition to the Bill. I shall use another metaphor which, again, is in common usage—namely, that the Bill is rather like the curate's egg. There are parts of it that are good. The problem with the rest of the egg is that it is so rotten that it is inedible.
The two parts of the Bill to which I object most strongly are an attack upon the civil liberties of people in Scotland. They are an attack upon people's rights. It is proposed to give the police the power to detain without good cause, without there being a genuine reason for arrest or charge, for six hours in a police cell. The only valid reason that I have heard advanced from the Conservative Benches for the introduction of such a power is that it will regularise the present position. In other words, the police are already taking people into detention and holding them there without a proper and legal right to do so.
If a section of the community is breaking the law, it is surely a spurious argument to say that the best way to solve the problem is by getting rid of the law and allowing that lawbreaking section to act legally. If that argument is accepted, the best way to reduce all crime figures is to cease to regard certain acts as criminal. If that is done, there are no criminals and no crime.
Will the new detention clauses stop the police from abusing their powers? Will the clauses have a regularising effect as Conservative Members, Ministers and the Thomson report have suggested? In my view, they will not. There will still be police who will be able to abuse the new, wider powers. The clauses allow detention to take place. The time at which a person is detained must be registered. However, it is never clear when detention starts. Is it when a person is picked up on the street and first asked to accompany the constable, is it when he arrives at the police station, or is it after certain other procedures have been gone through? It is not clear.
Who will register the time? The police will do so. They will have the right to enter the general nature of the suspected offence. That will be done by the police. They will say that the person will be informed of his rights. Who will inform him of his rights? Again, that will be done by the police. That will be done in the secrecy of the police station without any witnesses or any other persons being present. It will be the word of the police against that of the suspected person.
The suspected person will have the right, if the police allow him to do so, to

contact a solicitor or a member of the family to inform him or her that he is in the police station. Who will judge whether he should have that right? That issue will be judged not by the suspected person, not by an independent person, but by the police. The police will have complete control of the detention powers throughout. If there is to be abuse, it will he committed by the police. If there is abuse and the person who is picked up under the detention clauses complains to a lawyer or to the police that there has been abuse—for example, that he was detained for longer than six hours and not allowed to contact a lawyer or friend, without due cause—who will investigate the complaint? The investigation will be carried out by our old friends the police. There is no system in Scotland for an independent inquiry into complaints by members of the public into police activity.
We are seeing an extension of police powers, but the abuse of police power that is possible under existing legislation will not be removed. It will still exist when the Bill is enacted. We are extending the powers of the police but not regularising them. Instead, we are curtailing the rights of the individual within our society.
The second major complaint that I have against the Bill concerns the powers of stop and search. Various Conservative Members have said "We are prepared to accept laws that allow a person to be searched for drug abuse or under the provisions of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Therefore, why do we not extend that power and allow it in other instances?" I object to the powers of search in those two examples. The other example that has been used is the power of search for stolen birds' eggs. Not many of my constituents are stopped to have their pockets searched for birds' eggs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, it is interesting to consider the number of those who are stopped and searched for drugs and are found to be carrying drugs. In many instances in England when suspected persons are found to have drugs on them it appears that they have been placed on them by the police. It seems that only 25 per cent. of those who are stopped are carrying drugs. That means that 75 per cent. who are stopped


and searched are innocent. That also means that 75 per cent. will feel aggrieved at the police stopping and searching them. The stopping and searching is either random or on police suspicion.
Why do the police come to the conclusion that a person might be carrying drugs? It may be that the police consider that a person's hair is too long. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hair has been cut. I had it cut because I knew that the Bill would be introduced and that the police are suspicious of those wearing long hair. The police may take an interest in someone who is not wearing conventional clothes. There are various reasons why the police look at certain people, especially young people, and decide that they might be carrying drugs.
If the power to stop and search is extended to cover offensive weapons, the same thing will happen. There are young men in my constituency who are unemployed. They may be wandering the streets, because there is little else for them to do. They may be stopped by the police and searched for weapons. The majority of them will not be carrying an offensive weapon. What will be their reaction? It will be the same if they are detained under the detention clauses. It will be an aggravation against the police.
It is of major assistance to the police in their efforts to solve crime to have the support of the community in the area in which they operate. The clauses to which I have referred will destroy the relationship between the police and the community, especially in the large housing estates that my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and I represent—for example, the Castlemilk, the Drumchapel and the Easterhouse in Glasgow.
In those areas, the police need the cooperation of the people to solve crime. The clauses will lessen or destroy the possibility of co-operation. There will be aggravation and alienation between the people and the police. That is already there to an extent because the police are abusing their present powers. It already exists and it will worsen. The Bill will not assist in solving crime but will increase the problems, especially in areas of the sort to which I have referred.
The Government are introducing public expenditure cuts. They are doing so against a background of rising unemployment. They are creating the seed-bed of crime. Crime comes from social causes. The Government are exacerbating those social causes. At the same time they are attempting to give greater powers to the police so that they can attack working-class people who are unemployed as a result of their own policies. That is the feature that I find most abhorrent.

Mr. Bill Walker: I give the Bill a qualified welcome only. I welcome the powers contained in clause 4 to enable police officers to stop and search anyone who they have reasonable suspicion to believe may be carrying an offensive weapon. I welcome clause 55, which increases from £200 to £1,000 the fine for a second assault on police officers within two years. I also welcome clause 5 and how it proposes to deal with simple drunkenness as opposed to dangerous drunks by setting up detoxification centres. I say that as a teetotaller. I am glad that we are to deal with the drink problem in scotland.
However, I am disappointed as I believe that the Bill ducks some of the more contentious problems and papers over others. For example, in part I, which deals with police powers, especially the power of detention, the time period of six hours is just not long enough. It should be at least 12 hours and preferably 24 hours. I qualify that by saying that I accept that it would be advantageous and desirable to videotape questioning by the police. I believe that the police would welcome that if they had powers of detention at the same time.
In my view, the people of Scotland wish, above all else, to be protected from violence, intimidation and theft. The majority of parents in Scotland want their children to be brought up to believe in traditional Scottish values and to know the difference between right and wrong. Yet, sadly, hundreds of thousands of Scots, both old and young, no longer feel safe from assault and robbery.
In urban areas old people often go in fear and trembling. I remember canvassing at the by-election in Garscadden. I


was horrified by the number of doors in the tenements where there was not one chain but four. The old ladies behind those chains were frightened and trembling. I suggest that in many of our town centres young people also find it dangerous to walk the streets after sunset. As never before, our urban and, indeed, some of our rural areas, are dangerous. One can no longer travel alone safely on the last bus or on some trains and it is certainly dangerous to go to football matches and some discos.
The danger is greater today than it was in the days of our parents or our grandparents. Should we be surprised? Since 1945 the well-intentioned, articulate academics and reformers have had their way, often aided and assisted by woolly political thinking and woolly, inept political action. Old values and old standards have been debunked and rejected. The situation in Scotland today is evil, violent and frightening in many areas. Excessive drinking is often the root of the problem.
The Bill does not deal to a sufficient extent with the drink problem in Scotland, especially drink linked to criminal activity. A crime occurs in Scotland every few minutes. In the past 15 years the number of crimes of violence has more than doubled. The number of murders has also doubled. The incidence of the crime of rape has trebled. One in every five policemen is injured while carrying out their duties in the course of their police career. That is the situation that exists in Scotland today.
In Tayside in 1979 the number of murders increased by 50 per cent.; the number of attempted murders was up by 15 per cent.; the number of assaults on police officers was up by 13 per cent.; other serious assaults were up by 14 per cent. The carrying of offensive weapons has increased by 6 per cent. and robbery with violence has increased by 27 per cent.
Chief Constable Little of Tayside says in his report:
Instances of assault and robbery have also risen and this again can be attributed to the central crime area where there was a spate of such attacks towards the end of the year involving elderly women in particular.
It is no longer safe to be alone on the streets of some of our Scottish cities after dark. This horrendous catalogue of terror, injury and violence is a mas-

sive indictment of the failure of our system of law and order to control the evil and savage elements that exist in our society. It is wrong to pretend that those elements do not exist, because they are there. What is frightening is that the number of violent crimes is increasing.
Much has been said today about civil liberties. To me, that means going about my lawful business without fear of intimidation. It is only those who are involved in unlawful pursuits who need worry.
It is only right that Parliament should question the whole framework of policies designed to combat crime, violence and vandalism. It is right that we should introduce a Bill of this nature. My reservation is that the Bill does not go far enough in some respects. For that reason, I hope that I shall be given the opportunity to move some amendments in Committee. It is necessary for the people of Scotland to see that we are doing something about the increase in this horrendous catalogue of violent crimes and crimes of vandalism.
It is wrong for us to talk in abstracts. It was interesting to hear one Opposition Member say that he was a victim of mugging. That gives us some idea of the ratio of violent crime. Looking around the Chamber, I suggest that on the existing statistics in Scotland another hon. Member at present in the Chamber will have been a victim of mugging. It will not necessarily be an hon. Member who is advocating that something should be done about mugging. When muggers go out and about, they are not selective; they are simply looking for a victim. It is true to say that one is at risk if one is alone in some of our Scottish cities or travelling alone on a train or the last bus or walking some of the dark streets in East Perthshire alone.

Mr. Buchan: I should tell the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that I was within a few minutes' walk of the House of Commons when I was mugged, but I still oppose the nonsense in the Bill.

Mr. Walker: I do not suggest that it is safe to walk from the House of Commons; I am suggesting that it is unsafe to walk alone in some Scottish streets. This is a Scottish Bill being


debated by Scots and it is only right that I should refer to Scotland. If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) wishes me to catalogue the problems of London, I can do so because I have done my homework on that. However, I am not here to do that this evening.
I am concerned with the many millions of fellow Scots who want to live good, respectable lives and who look to us to do something about violent crime. They recognise that in the final analysis the prevention of crime will depend upon the effectiveness of our police forces. In this respect, one matter about which I still have reservations is the number of policemen on the beat. We should think carefully about increasing the number of policemen on the beat, because that is the best deterrent. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bill that increases expenditure on the police. However, I hope that that will be dealt with in a future Bill.
There is nothing humorous about this matter. It is sad, depressing and degrading for the victims of violent crime. We should be concerned always with the victims and should not spend so much time worrying about the criminal fraternity. It is well equipped to look after itself, as I know from the correspondence that I receive. I have a prison in my constituency and I take an active interest in what goes on in that prison. At a number of debating evenings I have had with them the villains in that prison have advised me of how well they know the law. They certainly know it better than I do.
My speech has been designed to draw attention to the victim, the innocent and those who want to live a decent life in Scotland.

Mr. Norman Hogg: At the last general election we heard a great deal from the Conservative Party about law and order, and we also heard a great deal from it about individual freedom. Its promise was to strengthen the forces of law and order and simultaneously to arrest the process, as the Conservative Party saw it, of the erosion of civil liberty. This Bill does not serve either of those objectives. Indeed, far from increasing the area of individual freedom, it actually shifts the balance against the people. It erodes civil liber-

ties, it offends the principles on which our criminal law has operated hitherto, and it extends police powers. I think that it exposes the true Tory position, which is very different in reality and in practice from the glib and easy phrases of the Tories' election manifesto.
Clause 2, which relates to detention and questioning at a police station, is particularly odious. The new principle of a limited detention, as a kind of half-way arrangement between inviting persons to a police station and arresting them, is at best very dubious and more likely to be thoroughly dangerous. The person detained would not have the rights and safeguards which normally apply to arrest. Moreover, this new provision would bring within the law the practice, which has developed over a period of time, of detaining persons for rigorous questioning. I am sure that every hon. Member has at some time had representations about that happening to a particular constituent.
A person assisting the police with their inquiries has not been obliged to remain at the police station. He has had the right to leave. Now, the Bill provides for six hours' detention. In that very long time he or she would be subject to close, determined and rigorous examination. Such questioning could be a frightening experience. Indeed, I am persuaded that it would be, and it would be intimidating to the person detained. He could be detained for the full six hours—a kind of short, sharp punishment—with no intention on the part of the police of making a charge. Such abuses are occurring even now, and the Bill will give the force of law to such an abuse.
There is no substantial evidence that the powers of arrest as they exist are insufficient. Those who make that claim must substantiate their case, and they have certainly not done that this evening. They must demonstrate that the evidence has been destroyed or that the course of justice has been interfered with. The powers of arrest are already very wide, with sufficient power being vested in the police. To many of us, an extension of police power is wholly unacceptable.
Another new power is given to the police in clause 4—the power to search a person for offensive weapons where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offensive weapon is being


carried in public. I suppose that the argument is that such a power would be useful in crime prevention. That I do not believe to be reasonable when weighed against all the opposing arguments. Surely a citizen in a free country has the right to be protected against unreasonable search. These principles are violated in the Bill.
What constitutes reasonable grounds which would give authority to a constable to make a search? What are these reasonable grounds? I fear very much the consequences of this power. The individual interpretation by constables of "reasonable grounds" would lead to varying practices. Of that I am certain. But worse still would be the likely discrimination against young people, and particularly young people in certain localities, such as the localities of my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). There are localities in those constituencies where this would be a serious problem. Who can say that such provisions are an extension of freedom?
I believe that it is in the areas of social deprivation that the powers of clause 4 will be used. The police will, perhaps, initiate random searches. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has attempted several times today to get this matter clarified. It has not been clarified. I hope that it will be clarified in the winding-up speech, because my hon. Friend is entitled to an answer. But there will be random searches among young people, and the tensions which already exist between the police and the community will be exacerbated.
What of the innocent person who is told by a constable that he is to be searched? I would strongly object to that. I would find it offensive. I would regard it as an indignity that I should be subjected to such a procedure. Yet this would he the risk in terms of clause 4(2). A person resisting a search may be guilty of obtructing a constable, so an innocent person, protecting his innocence and believing that in this country he has a right to protection from search, will find that not only has he lost that right and that the powers of the police have been extended but that his resistance is an offence. That is such a price to pay for this measure that I cannot believe that

the House would never agree to it, and I hope that it will not agree to it.
The advance of authority at the expense of the people is what we are seeing here. The advantages as the police see them and as the Government claim are lost against the cost of the disadvantages. The law as it stands allows search before arrest in cases of urgency and also allows the police to arrest any individual whom they have reasonable cause to believe is carrying an offensive weapon. Where, then, is the advantage of the Bill's provisions? If the sole objective is to reduce crimes of violence, this clause will not achieve that. That is also the view of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties.
Clause 6 provides that at judicial examination the prosecution may put to the accused person questions to obtain explanations and to give the accused an opportunity of commenting on anything that he may have said extra-judicially. This provision is opposed by both the council of the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties.. I am confident that the House will want to have very careful regard to their views, because the change here is fundamental.
The right proposed exists only for the Crown. The right lost is the accused's right of silence and the presumption of innocence. The accused does not have to answer. That is a fact. Clause 6(2) proposes a new subsection to section 28 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, providing in subsection (2) that the judge or the prosecutor may comment at the trial on failure to answer at the examination or on inconsistencies between answers on judicial examination and later in evidence at the trial.
The accused person will not be able without prejudice to reserve his defence, and there is no limit to the number of examinations which he may have to undergo. If the clause is enacted, the accused will be in the position of finding it very difficult to refuse to answer questions, and certainly at the trial refusal to answer will be regarded by a jury as an admission of guilt.
The Bill represents major changes and major losses in our civil liberties and in our rights. It is an attack on freedom. It is the second attack on freedom that


we have had. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Conservative Members may imagine that the Bill is popular, but it will not be popular when these powers are

enacted. What is more, what is popular is not necessarily right.
The Bill is an attack on freedom. It reduces rights. It lessens our liberties. It will not reduce crime and it will not prevent crime.

Mr. Ian Lang: I intervene in this debate with some diffidence, and I do so as one who is not a lawyer but who, having been involved in politics for some years, is aware of a strong public desire in Scotland for a comprehensive review of the powers, procedures and penalties relating to criminal justice. In particular, I am aware of the relentless rise in crime over the past decade and the now urgent need for determined action to fight it. In this, I would, if he were still in the Chamber, take issue with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who used some astonishingly misleading statistics in his speech this afternoon.
Much research has been done, and we now have no fewer than eight reports by distinguished specialist committees on various subjects, which appear in the Bill. Promises have been made by both of the major parties over the past few years. I say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) that it is not merely a matter of popularity, of keeping one's promises to the electorate; it is a matter of keeping good faith, and, above all, it is a matter of doing what is right and necessary in the interests of the people. There has also been detailed debate on many of the issues which arose in the previous Parliament when the Labour Government brought forward their proposals, many of which reappear in this Bill. Now I believe that the time is ripe, almost two decades since the last major reform of criminal justice, for firm action across the board. That is what this Bill offers. It is a major piece of legislation, and I warmly welcome it.
Of course, all that is not to say that we should throw caution to the winds. On the contrary, I believe that we should proceed at all times with great care, because the field of criminal justice is fraught with traps and quicksands. If in this Bill we do something that is wrong, it may not be easy to undo it, so we must try very hard to get it right the first time around. On the whole, the Bill gets it about right. I believe that that is true as regards those clauses concerned with changes in the powers of the police.
When one hears some people talk about the police, one may think that

they constituted some alien power in our midst. They do not. They are a vital part, integral yet independent, of the Government of the country. They, along with our courts, are the instruments by which the laws which we pass can be enforced. They are an essential structural ingredient in the fabric of our society. They are, indeed, the strong arm of the law and the front line in our defences against the forces that would set aside the rule of law and undermine the values on which our society is based. We owe it to ourselves and to the vast law-abiding mass of people in this country, whose security and welfare we profess to advance, that the police be ensured of the ability to fulfil the important duties that we expect of them.
From time to time the balance between the powers of the forces of law and the rights of individuals needs to be adjusted. Sometimes small individual liberties are better sacrified to the greater good of the maintenance of the rule of law, on which our greater liberties depend. The balance is delicate and needs careful handling. Like the Government, the previous Labour Government, and the eight distinguished committees and working groups that laboured long and with dedicated study, on the detail of the large majority of measures enshrined in the Bill, I believe the time is right—indeed, overdue—for an adjustment in that balance and for a strengthening of the powers of law enforcement and detection.
I believe that the electorate, to whom we promised such action, expect and want that from us. The intolerable level of crime, especially crimes of violence and those among young people, demand it of us. We would be culpably negligent if we did not take action.
We made a fine start a year ago with the police when we implemented at once the Edmund Davies report on pay. We have restored their earnings, numbers and morale. We are now right to strengthen their powers. In particular, I welcome the provision of powers for temporary detention, which the previous Government wanted and which the Thomson committee recommended. I even wonder whether six hours is long enough. It is a matter of judgment. However, I would


not go as far as the 24 hours or more that is allowed in England and Wales.
I also welcome the limited powers of search for offensive weapons, based on the recommendations of the Scottish Council on Crime, which go less far than those of the Thomson committtee. To Opposition Members and members of the public who argue that that power is an infringement of individual liberty, I reply that I would soon be stopped, searched and questioned twice a week than stabbed in the back once in a lifetime.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East was concerned about civil liberties. I suggest that a sober man who refuses to take a breath test is subject to the same type of infringement of liberty.
The use of these powers and other new powers such as the right to detain potential witnesses requires sensitivity on the part of the police. There is no reason to believe that the police are incapable of that. The Scottish police are an experienced and dedicated body of individuals. The powers proposed are moderate, considered and practical. They provide a legal sanction where before there was of necessity bluff or persuasion. Those who criticise them have signally failed to provide a better alternative.
For some time the balance of power between the wrongdoer and justice has been in need of particular attention as regards the young. There has been an explosion of crime and violence among the young in recent years, with an alarming and consequential drop in detection and conviction. That is when the potential criminal habits of a lifetime can become ingrained. That is when the need for firm and stinging retaliation by society is most needed and could be most effective on those who first set out to test the strength of society's resolve.
The creation of the crime of vandalism, in place of such euphemisms as "breach of the peace" or "malicious mischief", is therefore welcome and overdue. I also welcome the accompanying plans for short sharp sentences in detention centres, the provision of reparation or compensation to victims—as urged by the Dun-park committee—and the control of alcohol at football matches as urged by the McElhone working party and a number of other measures.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) seemed to indicate that to create the statutory offence of vandalism is mere cosmetics. With respect, I disagree. Surely it is the duty of Government to maintain the law in good repair, to keep it relevant to the changing nature of our society and the problems that it faces. In recent years we have seen a sustained rise not just in mischief or in the disturbance of the peace, but of the violent and gratuitous destruction of property and the terrorising of innocent victims by groups of young thugs. It is our duty to focus our attention and the full resources of the law upon that. Vandalism is what it is, and that is what it should be called. If that is a stigma, so be it. The solution to those who would be stigmatised lies in their own hands.
It is right to remove alcoholism from the list of statutory offences, punishable by imprisonment. Heavy fines—although I question whether the sum of £50 is enough—and the use of detoxification centres must offer a more appropriate and desirable approach to this difficult and dangerously expanding problem. This Bill reflects the society in which we live rather than that in which we might wish to live. As such it is a realistic and measured response to the problems that assail us in the field of criminal justice in Scotland. It sets out to restore the balance that has been lost. It is comprehensive, well considered and fair. I wish it speedy progress to the statute book.

Mr. George Foulkes: I shall make an unusual start to my speech by springing gallantly to the defence of the Secretary of State. He was attacked most unfairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He complained that the Government would get the Bill through as a result of the Government's English majority. Indeed, my hon. Friend introduced the 40 per cent. clause that blocked the Scottish Assembly. That Assembly would now have been discussing not this Bill, but something much better. That would have been to our benefit and to the great benefit of the people of Scotland. The only loss to the Bill would have been the wisdom of the


hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).
The Government have made great play of the similarity between the previous Labour Government's Bill and this measure. I ask the Government, particularly the Under-Secretary, to remember that the greater part of the Bill is welcomed by all. Many people have said that. The greatest protest has been made about the new provisions introduced by the Government. It should not be assumed that all Opposition Members support, or have supported, all of the previous Bill. Even those who have and who will have second thoughts should be considered honourable. It is not dishonourable to recognise one's own mistakes.
I am sure that all hon. Members will have welcomed the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government will give serious consideration to well-argued amendments in Committee. Most of the clauses reflect no political differences between us. It would be appropriate if Parliament applied some common sense to the legal knowledge and expertise that have already gone into the Bill. Many hon. Members have pointed out that we have had no Green or White Paper and no such discussion. It is therefore more important that careful scrutiny, even more careful than usual, should be given to the clauses in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) referred to football hooliganism. I give the proposals the benefit of the doubt. They are motiviated by good intentions. However, they would not have saved the life of a constituent who was on his lawful way to the Scotland-England match at Wembley. He boarded a normal service train at Kilmarnock. It was already overcrowded when it was allowed to leave Glasgow central station. Passengers were intoxicated and vanadalism and violence had taken place when my constituent boarded the train. There was no policing of that train. The train proceeded to Warrington in spite of a dying man being on board. The Government must be more vigorous in discussions with the various football organisations, British Rail and the police.
Apart from a notable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), hon.

Members have ignored the root cause of crime. They discuss the effects but ignore the cause. Football grounds in Scotland are an appalling disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park was too lenient. Most football grounds in Scotland are primitive, although there are honourable and notable exceptions. It is time that the football authorities did something about it.
Even more important than football grounds is the question of young people in the community and the root cause of vandalism and violence. How can one expect disillusioned young people to behave when they are offered no future and no jobs by the Government and when their facilities for recreation are being cut?
Because of financial pressures the Strathclyde regional council, in spite of rising rates, proposes to make huge charges for the use of schools. Youth organisations will fall by the wayside. Young people will have even less to do because of the Government's policies. More vandalism and violence will occur because of the public expenditure cuts. Government Members are the vandals. They should be dealt with. What do they suggest? They say that we should have more Glenochils. They suggest that there should be a Glenochil for every region. They suggest not a school for every parish nor a community centre for every community, but a Glenochil for every region. Glenochil is ineffective. The rate of recidivism is high.
I also oppose the provisions for detention on suspicion. Specific criticisms have been dealt with. One of the worst aspects is the inability of the detained person to contact relatives. That will cause anxiety to relatives. A detained person will not be able to contact a lawyer unless the police agree that it will not be harmful to their investigation. Not many police will agree to that.
Who supports the Bill? All practising lawyers seem to oppose it. The Glasgow Bar Association has sent a detailed memorandum. The Law Society of Scotland oppose many aspects of the Bill. The criminal law department at Edinburgh university opposes it in today's The Scotsman. Everybody opposes it except members of the Conservative Party who are bound and gagged by their Front Bench. Opposition has come from the


STUC, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and many other groups. Even the chief constable of the Grampian region has expressed opposition. The only supporters are Lobby fodder. They can be relied upon to go through the Lobbies to support the Government, whatever they say in the highways and byways. The lack of support in the country and the unstinting support of the Lobby fodder speak volumes, if not 81 clauses, about the Bill.

Mr. John MacKay: To the long list of people and bodies opposed to the Bill mentioned by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) could perhaps be added the vehement opposition of those in Barlinnie and suchlike institutions. I should like to refer to the less controversial ground covered by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). I have two small boys who are keen on football. They would dearly like to go to a professional match. I would willingly take them but my wife forbids it. Whips may play an important role in this House but wives are even more important in one's own house. I cannot take my two boys to professional matches because of football vandalism and hooliganism about which we hear and see so much. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park mentioned, there are many mothers who forbid their children to go to football matches.
I would like Ministers to consider one of the points made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire about the availability of alcohol on football specials or trains heavily used by supporters going to football matches. More will be required than this Bill. Football players themselves need to exhibit a great deal more sportsmanship on the field than has occurred over the last few years. If there was less violence, and fewer arguments took place with the referee on the field, there might be a lot less violence on the terraces.
Vandalism is a crime under a different name. Why not call a spade a spade and not an instrument causing malicious mischief to the back of a springtime garden? Let the public see that we believe that vandalism is a crime and that a vandal is a criminal. This would not increase the punishment for vandalism but it would show the public and those young-

sters who sometimes act out of fun, that their action is wrong and criminal.
I welcome what clause 7 says about district courts. I sat for many years on the Bench. I welcome the extension of the cases that will be heard. I would, however, suggest that the time has come to consider increasing the fines that can be imposed by district courts. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act specifies a maximum£5 fine for being drunk and incapable. That amount is probably less than it cost the accused to get drunk and a lot less than he will spend to celebrate when he walks out.
It is obvious that controversy exists over clauses 1 to 4. We have to think seriously about civil liberties. The civil liberty of the innocent, law-abiding citizen is the most important civil liberty. I welcome the powers granted to the police to search people whom they have reason to suspect may be carrying weapons. The chief constable of Strathclyde in his recent article suggested that young people leave their homes with weapons not necessarily to assault the police but to assault anyone who crosses their path.
It is only right and proper that the police should have powers to stop and search people they think may be carrying offensive weapons. That is much more important than stopping them to see whether they have rare birds' eggs that they have stolen in Harris in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) or even to see whether they have drugs, or stopping people in cars who may not have had a drink at all so that they can be breathalysed. It is far more important for the preservation of life and liberty of young people that the police should be given power to stop and search for offensive weapons.
What bothers me is the sight, portrayed by Labour Members, of police rampaging down every high street stopping and searching every youngster they come across. Some Labour Members are poisoning the minds of young people against the police. The question of the police detaining someone for six hours has been mentioned. One would think that the police, at the moment, cannot take someone to a police station and question them for some hours.
In fact, the six hours proposed in the Bill are considerably less than the 12 hours which, in the case of Hartley v. Her Majesty's Advocate in November 1978, the appeal court found that it was proper for the police to take an accused 17-year-old—albeit, supposedly voluntarily, but as the 17-year-old was not properly mentally balanced, it is difficult to decide what is voluntary and what is not—to question him on two occasions, on one occasion, the day after, for 12 hours until they got a confession. That is the situation as it stands at present. It is no good Labour Members ducking this issue, as they have done.
I believe that the Bill will help the police to maintain law and order. It is the police who maintain law and order. It is not Acts passed by this House, the lawyers, the professors and lecturers in law at Edinburgh university, and certainly not the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. The law is kept by the police.
If I am assaulted in the street, I do not shout "Help, lawyers", I shout "Help, police", because the police stand between me and the thug. If I stay in an Edinburgh housing estate through which some vandals are rampaging, I do not send for the law faculty of Edinburgh university, I send for the police. The public knows that that is what the police are for.
I wonder how many lawyers are murdered in a year. How many of them are assaulted each year? Not very many. Yet, last year in Strathclyde, as the report of the chief constable shows, 20 per cent. of his police officers were assaulted in the protection of us and our constituents. That must be borne in mind.
What has disturbed me during my year in this House is that, from some Labour Members, there has been a sustained campaign of smear and innuendo against the police force. Perhaps I feel that more than others, as my father was a police officer. I have two uncles who were police officers and my cousin is a police officer. I know many policemen, both presently active and retired. Frankly, the people whom I know, and to whom I am related, are not the type of policemen whom the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) slandered in his speech. I simply do not recognise the portrait that is painted by some Labour Members, who

seem to wish to smear the forces of law and order and the police force of this country.
The police force has a difficult, dangerous and unpleasant job to do. When one is brought up in a police station, one is made very aware of the unpleasantness and the dangers which are involved in the job of the police. Their job is to protect us, our children and our old folk. My experience of police officers is that they will not abuse the powers that are given in the Bill. Rather, they will use them to protect us, as is their duty.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: Debates such as this are always difficult. Certain Conservative Members always behave as though we are not concerned with the victims but are concerned only with the criminals. In fact, it is more complicated than that. I have seen some of the more intelligent Conservative Members wincing at the comments of some of their colleagues.
One hon. Member spoke as though there was once a wonderful age in Scotland when there was no crime, and he suggested that we should go back to old Scottish values. That is an absolute myth. If one reads the history of Scotland, one will discover that, especially when urbanisation took place at a rapid pace, whole areas of Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and other cities were almost no-go areas for the police. There was never a beautiful, idyllic Scotland—a people's friend version of Scotland—to which some Conservative Members have suggested we should return.
I am equally concerned and worried about crime. To a large extent, I have always been involved with the subject in this House, either in debate or in the all-party committee on penology. What I do not believe, and what I know the more intelligent Conservative Members do not believe, is that there is some magic formula.
The belief is held by some people that a wand can be waved giving powers to the police and that thereafter everything will be all right. There is no magic. The issue is complicated. There is world-wide crime in our technological society and there are no easy answers to our problems.
The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that the Bill was nonpartisan and that a similar measure had been introduced by the Labour Party when it was in power. The Secretary of State must be aware of the criticism of the Bill emanating from reputable bodies throughout Scotland and that those bodies are not friends of the criminal. They are concerned about crime. If the Secretary of State does not intend to pay any attention to those bodies, we should closely examine the Bill which proposes fundamental changes in the criminal law of Scotland.
We have been told that the Bill is a result of a much industrious work by learned people. If the Bill is as important as that, let us treat it in a nonpartisan way. I believe that there should be a free vote on a large number of the clauses. If the Government were willing to allow that, I believe that a surprising number of Conservative Members would vote against some of the clauses. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has in the past persuaded me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to vote with him on one or two occasions. On those occasions we treated the issues being debated as being far too important to Scotland to be approached in a narrow, party political way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) dealt with the nub of the Bill when he referred to the relationship between the police and the public. The reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends is appropriate because it deals with that relationship.
The leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), spoke of the generation gap. There is no doubt that a generation gap exists and we do no good by pretending that relations between young people and authority are as good as they should be. There is a crisis of authority and because the police are the epitome of the expression of authority it is easy for relationships between them and certain groups to become abrasive.
Statistics show that there appears to have been an improvement since the

1960s and early 1970s but that does not mean that we should be complacent. Serious trouble may be smouldering below the surface. I can understand how the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)—having been brought up in a police station—might have a different view of the relationship between the police and some groups. He will have a different view of the social scene from that of many other hon. Members. His view may have been in part a privileged one and in part a narrow one.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton emphasised that the police do not maintain law and order. The police are a kind of vital and absolutely essential fire brigade. But if society does not agree with the law no police force can maintain the law. There have been examples in certain parts of the world recently where very powerful armies have been unable to hold back people determined on a certain course of action. It is not a matter of being anti-police.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) accompanied the all-party penal reform group on visits to prisons and for that reason I had hoped for more support from him. He said that there would be a risk of abuse if we did not give the police the tools with which to do the job. I wonder how far we go in this matter. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced prosecutor and defender in the courts. I suggest that the relationship between the police and the public is very brittle.
During the recess I travelled around Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. I am not making a cheap party point when I say that the Tories have made matters worse; but they will make them a great deal worse unless they make the U-turn that we hear they are likely to make fairly soon.
Part of the trauma of our decaying society is that going through parts of Dundee, Glasgow or Edinburgh, one sees young people with no hope, no jobs. They left school perhaps a year or 18 months ago and there are no jobs on the horizon. One does not need to wonder why they go to Ayr or to Scarborough, or wherever, to get a little excitement. Obviously, when walking about the streets of cities in both Scotland and England, they feel that nobody cares what they are doing.


The only way that they can get recognition is by doing something outrageous. I abhor purple and red hair. It is disturbing, but we must try to understand rather than to condemn. It means something. They are trying to give us messages and we, in the Mother of Parliaments, should try to understand and find out what those messages are.
It is dangerous to increase antagonism between young people and authority, which is basically the police, any more than is necessary. We know the kind of young people who will be picked up by the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was right: it will be those with the long hair, the slightly out of the ordinary, who will be laid upon—"laid upon" is an unfortunate phrase—who will be victimised by certain police.
I do not suggest that the police as a whole will do that, but I have had experience which I described in a Committee recently. There were two bad policemen in a division in my constituency and it was months before the police were able to get rid of them. I discovered much later that the senior police in that division were trying to find a way to get rid of those officers. They did it ultimately, but in the meantime those officers caused a great deal of trouble in the area. Therefore, one or two police officers, particularly with powers such as these—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Carmichael: —could do a great deal more damage to the police force as well as to police-public relations. I hope that we shall not add to that by passing some of the contentious legislation in the Bill.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The Bill contains many clauses of the 1979 Bill which was proposed by the previous Labour Government prior to the general election. It is not a Bill to create oppression of citizens or to form a police State, as has been indicated by many Labour Members. I am sad that the principal remarks of Opposition Members related mainly to the powers of search and arrest. We did not hear much about vandalism

or about the citizen who was suffering. However, Conservative Members did take up that matter.
During the past few months right hon. and hon. Members have been receiving massive correspondence on the Bill as well as reading in the press what various editors thought about it. The Bill has no real significance to these public protesters; it is merely habit in that respect.
This Bill, as the leader article in today's issue of the Glasgow Herald states, is "Justice for all". That is the way that we look at it. The Bill seeks to legislate the many proposals which have been received from various bodies, which are concerned about existing legislation and which have been presented to both the previous Labour Government and to this Government.
It is not my intention to delay the House with many comments on the clauses, as these will be fully ventilated when the Bill moves from the House after the vote and goes into Committee. I wish to comment on some of the proposals contained in the Bill. I am certain that the vast majority of people in Scotland agree with the proposals to give police officers more power to stop and search when an officer is suspicious that a crime has been, or is intended to be, committed, or that the person being challenged by the officer may be in possession of an offensive weapon.
It is a sad state of affairs that many people have no regard for law and order. The recent outrages in the town of Ayr, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, are a clear illustration of what law-abiding citizens are having to suffer. Any legislation which seeks to control these thugs must surely receive the approval of the House.
I fully approve the proposals to curb vandalism, despite the fact that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) does not consider "vandalism" an appropriate word. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said—and he was substantiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang)—it is vandalism.
The Bill does not go far enough with regard to the penalties that can be imposed for vandalism. In a recent case one thug was fined £350 for carrying an


offensive weapon and taking part in a riot. Was he worried about the fine? No, he was not. When he was questioned about his reaction to the fine he was reported to have said that he had a take-home pay of £130 a week, and that he would have to cut back on the beer to pay the fine. When asked if he was sorry for having committed the offence, he said that he had no regrets and would ensure that he was much smarter in the future, so as to evade arrest.
It has been said that penalties for these offences should be hard enough to hit the offender where it hurts. If these are the sort of remarks that can be made when a fine is imposed, the Bill should have tougher penalties so that the offender really understands that crimes against the public do not pay.
There are the football hooligans. We heard very little about them from Opposition Members. They cause much damage on their drunken journeys to and from the match. They enter the grounds in such a state that the police have difficulty in controlling them. Consider the two big matches in Glasgow last Saturday. A young police officer was carried off on a stretcher, required stitches for wounds in his head and had to remain in hospital. In addition, 83 persons were arrested for drunkenness and rowdyism.
The parts of the Bill dealing with the control of sporting events should be welcomed on both sides of the House as they deal with these problems and are based on the report of the McElhone working group, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone).
There is one section of the Bill that I would like the Minister to reconsider, namely, clause 31 which seeks to change the law in relation to traffic offences under section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. I do not believe that the proposal in the Bill would be acceptable to the people of Scotland, who have always had the protection that two witnesses were necessary to prove a case for prosecution. The clause should be redrafted, and retain the present practice, as any change would be considered an erosion of justice.
As has been said by other right hon. and hon. Members, the size and scope of

the Bill are such that it will be the largest piece of major legislation in the area of criminal justice since 1963. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland quoted what was said in another place:
Every citizen should be entitled to expect from the State a system of justice which is fair. To be fair it must be efficient and reasonably swift: it must protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Its punishments must also be humane."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1980; Vol. 404, c. 26.]
In supporting these comments, I am certain that these sentiments are fully covered in the Bill. That can only be good for the future of criminal control in Scotland and a safeguard for the law-abiding citizens who dwell in our country.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). The hon. Gentleman's almost final comment summed up his attitude to the Bill and, I suspect, the attitude of many towards law and order. He said that he was grossly dissatisfied with the proposal to abolish the law of corroboration in the case of parking offences but that he was strongly in favour of the stop and search powers. That sums up his attitude. The hon. Gentleman feels that he has more chance of being caught for parking illegally than for carrying an offensive weapon. He said that we should maintain the law on corroboration in respect of parking offences—but that we should impose stop and search powers—because parking offences are more likely to affect the hon. Gentleman.
I turn to the background against which the Bill is introduced. I suspect that the Solicitor-General will be delighted when the Bill reaches the statute book, because it is the last Bill that will give Labour Members the opportunity to give the Solicitor-General for Scotland a feast of his own words. He has a fair number of good substantial meals to which to look forward in Committee. I shall deal with one or two soup courses —the starters—first.
The background against which the Bill is introduced is one of rising crime. I say that deliberately, because in the last year of the previous Labour Government—the Labour Party has been branded by Conservative Members as not being in favour of law and order—crime


in Scotland fell by 12½ per cent. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was first appointed a Minister at the Scottish Office, was delighted to issue that figure. I accept that that reduction was from a high level of crime, and I am not trying to paint a bright picture where none exists.
Since the Conservative Government took office the Lord Advocate, the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has gone to great lengths and trouble to say publicly that crime in Scotland is again substantially increasing under the present Administration. I am not surprised that the Bill has proved to be so much of a hotch potch, because Conservative Governments do not have much experience of introducing law reform measures. It is said that the Conservative Party is the party of law and order, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East gave the game away. If the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Bill is discounted, the last Scottish law reform measure introduced by a Conservative Administration was the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963—that is, 17 years ago. During the Conservatives' period in office between 1970 and 1974 the numerical strength of the police forces fell to its lowest level, and yet the Conservative Party claims to support the police. No criminal justice legislation was introduced between 1970 and 1974 to strengthen the power of the courts or the power of the police.
When the Labour Government left office in 1979 police strength in Scotland was the highest in the history of the force. The Labour Party—supposedly the party of disrespect for law and order—introduced five law reform measures between February 1974 and the 1979 election.
I am simply putting on record the fact that a Labour Government increased police establishment levels and police strengths throughout Scotland to record levels, and at the end of the day, because of the law reform measures that we took, we were able, with the help of the police forces, to reduce crime in Scotland by 12½ per cent. I wager that in 1984, when the next general election is due to take place, the Tory Government will not be able to claim a record approaching that. I believe that crime will have soared yet again under a Tory Government and that police manpower levels will be no higher.

Mr. Peter Fraser: That is absurd. The Thomson committee was appointed in January 1970. Its second report, which forms the guts of the Bill, was first presented to Parliament in October 1975.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is new to Parliament. He should understand that law reform measures are not necessarily based on committee reports. [Interruption.]
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Mr. Ancram) will stop playing the part of a vandal, contain himself and learn to behave in the way that he is trying to encourage the people of Scotland to do, we shall proceed more quickly.
The majority of the five law reform measures passed by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 were mere extensions of existing powers to make more severe penalties available to the courts. They did not require the recommendation of committees. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) understands that.
Unfortunately, throughout the debate the attitude has prevailed, particularly on the Government Benches, that those who are against the Bill are against the police. That is rubbish. Nothing is further from the truth. Many of us oppose certain measures in the Bill because we are deeply concerned about the police and their role in society. We do not wish to see their position damaged.
The Secretary of State in opening said that the Bill would redress the balance in favour of the police. Balance is all important. It is widely accepted by those who practice law—which I do not—that law is very much a question of balance. We must consider various factors in trying to reach the correct balance— the position of the police, accused persons and victims of crimes. We must also consider the ordinary individual, who is not responsible for enforcing the law, who does not offend against it and who is not a victim of crime.
There is a difference between this Bill and our Bill. The balance in this Bill has been markedly tipped in favour of law enforcement, in its broadest sense. The Bill includes the stop and search powers, judicial examination and other issues to that end. The Bill is damaged by the balance being tipped in that way.
If the Government had introduced the remainder of the Labour Government's Bill, with the re-trial procedures, I am certain that it would have gone through the House without the controversy that the present Bill is causing, and that it would not have given so much cause for concern to the people of Scotland. The then Lord Advocate, now Lord Murray, had already given an indication that we would table the necessary amendments on Report. Had that Bill, with those added provisions, been introduced, including the powers of detention for four hours, it would, as I have already suggested, have gone through the House without controversy.
It is unfair to single out those who are opposed to the Bill as being "way out". When we look at the very wide cross-section of opinion opposed to the Bill, it is only right to take account of the concern that has been caused.
If I may give the Solicitor-General for Scotland the first feast of his own words, I agree with him when he said that as a matter of habit
shorter and more frequent Criminal Justice Hills would be infinitely more sensible than big Bills.".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 14 December 1978; c. 97.]
He then proceeds to produce a Bill which has 81 clauses and eight schedules. If that is an example of a short Bill, I should hate to see what the Solicitor-General for Scotland would regard as a long Bill.
Obviously, the question of stop and search has given us the greatest cause for concern. While the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is here, let me take issue at once with him. Just as the Leader of the Liberal Party and his party cannot have it both ways, neither can the right hon. Member for Western Isles and the Scottish National Party have it both ways. He surely did not take the trouble to read the proceedings on the Committee stage of the previous Bill, because it was the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), the chairman of his party, who introduced a new clause to create stop and search powers. The present Government have latched on to that. It was partly as a result of that new clause being tabled that the Solicitor-General for Scotland spoke to his amendment and the new clause. The new clause and the hon.

and learned Gentleman's amendment were taken together in the same debate, and were knocked over by the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who supported each other with regard to stop and search powers. It does not become the leader of the Scottish National Party, therefore, to come to the House and tell us that he is against the provision when his own party chairman was strongly in favour of it.
We are opposed to the stop and search powers because of the damage that will be done particularly to the relationship between the police and the public. When the last Bill was in Committee, many questions were asked and answered about what hon. Members would do if constituents came to them and complained that they had been stopped and searched, that they did not have a police record, that they were as innocent as the day was long, and asked for the matter to be taken up with the chief constable. Would the Member of Parliament simply tell his constituent that it was the law of the land, like it or lump it, and that the police had the power to search?
The strong possibility is that Members of Parliament will take up that kind of complaint with chief constables. In that event, the constable who carried out the search would have to justify in the first instance to the deputy chief constable his reasonable ground. Every hon. Member, from whichever part of the House, knows that complaints will mount up. There can be no doubt that, as this happens, relationships between the police and the public will become increasingly estranged, more and more difficult, and that all the community involvement work that has taken place over the past few years will go for naught.
I read with great interest an interview entitled "The Honest Truth" that the Under-Secretary of State, who will be dealing with the Bill in Committee, gave to yesterday's Sunday Post. The questions which gave him the greatest difficulty were those that he was asked about the stop and search powers. He was asked why stop and search powers are to be introduced in Scotland but not in England and Wales. I shall paraphrase the Minister's reply. I am not misunderstanding him or misquoting him. The hon. Gentleman said that because Scotland, especially the West Central belt, has


more serious crime involving the use of offensive weapons, the power is needed in Scotland. By implication he was saying—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is nodding his head in agreement, but I suspect that there is not much serious crime involving the use of offensive weapons down among the sheep in the area from which he comes—that there is more serious crime in Scotland. I doubt whether that is so. I doubt whether Glasgow is a more violent place than Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or some of the other cities in England and Wales.
The Minister was saying "Because we have more serious crime in Scotland we need stop and search powers." By implication he was saying that the rest of the country does not need them. The Secretary of State was placed in great difficulty today when he was asked whether it was intended to introduce stop and search powers throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman gave the only answer that he could possibly give.
The second question that the Minister was asked in the "Honest Truth" article gave him equal difficulty. He was asked whether he could give examples of situations in which the stop and search powers would be used. The hon. Gentleman gave two interesting examples. He said that if the police are called to an incident where an offensive weapon has been used, obviously they will search those at the scene of the incident. Secondly, if they are on their way to an incident and they see someone running away, they will try to apprehend that person and search him.
If those were the only two instances in which the stop and search powers were to be used, much of the argument that my right hon. and hon. Friends have advanced against the new provision would be removed and a great deal would be done to reassure those who have anxiety about the powers. However, the Minister knows that those are not the only two circumstances in which the powers will be used. Let every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate understand that there will be occasions when innocent persons are stopped on the streets and searched.
When listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, I had the impression

that he regarded that as an acceptable risk in order to create a greater degree of safety—I do not think that I misrepresent him—and to enable others to go about their business. The difference between us is that we do not believe that it is an acceptable risk. We do not believe that the arrest of innocent persons who have no record, nothing against them and no blemish on their character should be allowed to take place. Everyone knows that when someone is stopped and searched the fact soon becomes a matter of common gossip. It soon becomes common knowledge, especially in smaller neighbourhoods, that a person has been stopped and searched. That will do the reputation of the person concerned no good in the village or community.

Mr. Ancram: Does the hon. Gentleman take the same view about the breathalyser procedure, when someone who is sober is asked to blow into a bag? Surely that is humiliating. Others get to know about it. Neighbours soon know what has happened. The breathalyser legislation was introduced by a Labour Government.

Mr. Ewing: That may appear to the hon. Gentleman to be a smart point. I assure him that it is not nearly so smart as he thinks. I understand that when the police use a breathalyser kit they have to register in a pro forma in the police station that they have used the kit. They have to register the name and address of the person concerned. They have to declare whether the test was positive or negative. The Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State seem to indicate dissent. If the police use breathalyser kits and do not record the fact that they are doing so, that is a change in the procedure. Certainly when the breathalyser test was introduced the police had to record the fact that it was used.
It is interesting that this should be used as an example because in recent years—especially the past two or three years—people in Scotland have been stopped and breathalysed, but after they had been stopped for something which had nothing to do with being suspected of drunken driving. Clever lawyers have been able to get their clients acquitted. The hon. Member for South Angus is laughing because he knows that that is true. Therefore the stop and search powers, as the


hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, are a very wide extension of police powers and should not be introduced at present. Had they been omitted from the Bill it could have a much easier passage than it will have. That is not a threat but an indication of the difficulty which hon. Members face because of the inclusion of the stop and search powers.
I conclude this part of my remarks by saying to some Conservative Members—I do not name them because I suspect that they will know who I mean—that it is not on to come to the House and try to build a political career for themselves based on people's fears. That is the simplest thing in the world to do. We can all do that. Members of Parliament should have at least a sense of responsibility. Some of their speeches made me cringe.
I noted that the Secretary of State was keen to pass over the invitation to make reference to clause 21. I also noted that when the Minister of State introduced the Bill in the other place he deliberately avoided any reference to that part of the Bill. I am referring to trial in the absence of an accused person. It is interesting to note that such a provision has been included in the Bill and that three of the occupants of the Government Front Bench voted against this clause and were instrumental in having it deleted from the Labour Government's Bill. The only difference in clause 21, which was clause 24 in our Bill, is the sop that officials in the Scottish Office have given to the Solicitor-General, to try to quell his fears, that if a person who is not represented is removed from the dock the trial judge will appoint a legal representative. But that does not take account of the reservations that the Solicitor-General for Scotland put forward in Committee when we debated this provision in our Bill, and he knows it. He was absolutely delighted to join with some of my hon. Friends to ensure that that clause was deleted. So when we come to acrobatics I am sure that the Solicitor-General must be the fittest man in the Government at present.
One part of our Bill that I wish the present Government had retained was the reference to part-suspended sentences. When we debated this in Committee the Solicitor-General and his hon. Friends

started off in the debate—I suppose that is what debates are for—with great reservations about part-suspended sentences. But right at the end of the debate blinding conversion came and the Solicitor-General said that he was persuaded, and lo and behold part-suspended sentences were retained in our Bill without a Division, with the concurrence of the Solicitor-General and his thanks and praise to those of us who had been able to persuade him. That provision is not in this Bill. Yet we are told that part of the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the prison population. The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for prisons know that part-suspended sentences, if introduced only on an experimental basis for a trial period, could have made a contribution to reducing the prison population. I am not suggesting that they would have made a massive contribution but they could have gone some way to reducing the prison population in Scotland.
Some hon. Members say that we have the highest male prison population in Western Europe. We have only the second highest, but that is nothing to boast about. I understand that West Germany now has a higher male prison population per head of population. Conversely, we ought to pay tribute to the ladies, because we have the lowest female prison population per head of population in Western Europe. In these days of equality, the ladies would never forgive us if we did not put that on record.
I hope that in Committee we shall certainly consider the possibility of reintroducing the part-suspended sentence concept. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is shaking his head. No doubt we shall hear his reasons for a change of mind.
I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for South Angus. I hope that the Government will pay attention to what their hon. Friends say. Obviously we are not in favour of detention for six hours. Our proposal was for four hours, and I shall stand by that. If six hours is to remain in the Bill, there is a strong case for adopting the hon. Member's suggested wording. Indeed, it was the wording proposed by the Thomson committee when considering the matter. I hope that the Solicitor-General


for Scotland will look at what his hon. Friend said.
I come finally to the question of judicial examination. This was not in the Labour Government's Bill, but it is in this Bill There can be no doubt that there is a serious problem—I say this with great respect to my hon. Friends who are lawyers—when an accused person, on pleading diets and all the rest of it, pleads not guilty and we incur fairly substantial legal aid costs in that process, and then, just before the trial proper starts, we get a change of plea and a plea of guilty, all at substantial expense to the legal aid fund.

Mr. David Lambie: On the advice of lawyers.

Mr. Ewing: I am not suggesting that the judicial examination will cure that problem, but I am anxious to discuss whether it will do so. I am also anxious to discuss the effect on the trial of an accused person of his remaining silent. In the memorandum issued by the Scottish Office there is strong indication that any accused who decides to remain silent at the point of judicial examination would be at a serious disadvantage when it came to his trial. The wording in paragraph 11 of the document issued by the Scottish Office is quite clear when dealing with the question of judicial examination and clause 6. There is a danger. I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland would agree. Indeed, if he were to prosecute a case where the accused had decided to remain silent at his judicial examination and then led evidence at the trial proper, and if he thought it to the prosecution's advantage to bring out the fact that the accused had decided to remain silent at the judicial examination, there can be no doubt that he or any prosecutor worth his salt would use that situation. It would act against the accused, because the jury would have doubt sown in their minds because the accused had had the opportunity at judicial examination, which took place much earlier, to make a statement and chose not to do so.
The Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—is nodding his head in agreement. That is a very dangerous agreement to give us. He agrees that someone who decides to reserve his position, as

it were, until the trial proper starts will be at a disadvantage because of the decision to reserve his position.
Therefore, at this stage, I am not prepared to accept the concept of judicial examination; nor at this stage am I prepared to condemn it. I am anxious to see the Bill in Committee and to discuss the question of judicial examination in detail and depth, so that we know the effect that judicial examination will have. Before we reach that stage I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will turn their minds to the question of the change of plea just before a trial proper starts. When I had some responsibility for such issues we met various organisations in order to try to do somethings about the drain on legal aid resources resulting from a late change of plea.
I think that I have said sufficient to indicate that the Opposition have a serious reservation about the Bill. I stand by the parts of the Bill for which I was responsible when I was a Minister. There can be no question about that. However, the new material—to use the phrase which appears in the Government press releases —introduced in the Bill causes us serious concern. As a result, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight to vote for the amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): It must be very difficult for an hon. Member such as the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) who has guided a Bill, the majority of whose provisions are echoed in this measure, to maintain a pretence of righteous indignation for 30 minutes. However, he almost succeeded and towards the end he made some helpful remarks about judicial examination.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth began his remarks by saying that the figures for crime had fallen during the period of office of the previous Labour Government. I do not approach crime from the point of view of whether the figures went up or down by a certain percentage in a year. For example, 78 people died as a result of homicide last year in Scotland, mostly because knives had been carried unlawfully. The fact


[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.] that there were 106 deaths in the previous year is no cause for satisfaction. The figure represents 78 good lives that were uselessly destroyed. If we could save one of those lives in any one year, we should have to be given very convincing reasons for making a change in the law that did not achieve such an effect.
We must examine with the greatest care any attempt to resist a change that has a substantial chance of saving even one life. Many Opposition Members have shown constant concern for whether they are being falsely represented in their search and belief in what is now called "civil liberties"—presumably as opposed to "criminal liberties". With respect to them, I am impressed that the "Stop the Criminal Justice Bill" campaign to which a large number—and a significant personality—among the Labour Party gave their names, opposed the Bill before it had been published. Not one of those hon. Members has said, in the hysterical terms in which others have criticised certain provisions, that he welcomes the libertarian excellence of the provision that if a prosecution is not brought within 12 months of charge no prosecution can lie. What other nation in the civilised world can boast such a power? However, we have heard not a word from those who claim to have an interest in civil liberties. They hide their resentment of the law and of those who enforce it behind a pretence of concern for liberty.
Let us be clear. To be a member of society involves the sacrifice of innumerable civil liberties. One gives up the Tight to help oneself to what one wants. One gives up the right to hit anybody. One gives up innumerable rights for the benefit of society. One surrenders to the State one's rights to protect oneself.
I was impressed by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who did not seek to make unnecessarily provocative comments. He concentrated his remarks on his reservations about the concept of detention and search. Hon. Members from both sides of the House must, or should, agree that it is in the interests of us all to ensure that crime is deterred. It is in the interests of us all to ensure that that deterrence is created principally by the detection of crime and the conviction and punishment of those who commit crime.
Of all those who have expressed views in the press and learned journals, whether they commit crimes or have crimes committed against them, fear that crimes will be committed against them, or those who go about their ordinary business and may come into contact with the criminal law on the wrong side or the right side, few have gone unheard in the somewhat histrionic condemnation of some of the Bill's provisions.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a particular knowledge of the thinking of persons who are silent. It is not easy to find intellectuals amongst the law-abiding public who have the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: They come from all over the place.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows members of the public to whom he talks as members of a secret society, perhaps even in his sleep. The ordinary members of the public are more anxious that they might be the victims of a crime than they are about the possibility of being asked to be searched for an offensive weapon. For everyone who resents being searched there must be 100,000 who are thankful to be searched instead of being stabbed.
If Opposition Members do not like the concept; if they resent the police and are suspicious of them and are on the side of the law they can take steps by their utterances. It is important that as far as possible we remove fear from our society. The fear of crime is one of the principal fears.
I turn to the question of powers of search. The hon. Member for Glasgow. Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to how the powers are being changed from the provisions in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. I was amazed that the hon. Gentleman did not appear to have read that Act.
Section 1(3) of the Act provides:
A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be committing an offence"—
of carrying an offensive weapon—
if the constable is not satisfied as to that person's identity or place of residence".
If he happens to know that the person is carrying a weapon, he may not arrest


him unless he is not sure of his name and address.
That is a very different situation from the power that we now propose—a power that was not inserted by a cumulative vote of the Committee but by the single vote of the Labour Member of Parliament for Dundee, West. Whatever the contribution made by the chairman of the Scottish National Party, it does not alter the fact that it was a Labour Member of Parliament who was conscious of the fact that people are stabbed. In the South court in Glasgow, last week, there were five cases, every one of which involved the use of a knife. In the North court, there were five cases, all of which I prosecuted, each involving an offensive weapon.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would they have been stopped by the clause in the Bill?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It lies ill in the mouth of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to suggest that, even if one of them might have been stopped by this power, it would not have been beneficial.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say which of those five cases would have been prevented by this Bill? How would that have been done?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is a substantial chance in at least half of those cases that had this power existed the weapons would not have been carried and could not have been used. If this power is known to exist, and if this law can he advertised in the same way as the breathalyser law, the public will not tolerate the carrying of weapons.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman envisage that the new power to be given under the clause will allow group searches? Or will there still have to be suspicion of an individual?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There has to be reasonable suspicion. Whether we see Labour Members handing the knife round among themselves and, therefore, all have to be searched to find who has the parcel at the time the music stops may be another matter. There are considerable powers of search without warrant and without suspicion under

many Acts of Parliament to which none of those who object to this Bill have objected in the history of their enforcement. There is the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, for instance.
Literally thousands of people are stabbed in Scotland every year. If even a few of those could not suffer that fate, I believe that the Bill would be worthwhile. I do not believe that there are any parents in Scotland who would not prefer that their children were searched and found to have a knife than that they had to turn up and watch them being tried in the High Court for using one.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think I must get on with my speech.
I now turn to the question of judicial examination. In the view of the Government, it is fundamentally important that the innocent should be acquitted and the guilty should be convicted. In the assistance of the concoction of a false defence, nothing is easier than not committing oneself until one can discover a way around the evidence which establishes one's guilt. An innocent man who is charged with a crime knows immediately that he has not done it. He knows exactly what explanation he has to give. He knows whether he can establish the fact that he was somewhere else. He knows whether he can establish that the act was done in self-defence. He has nothing to fear from stating his position. But a guilty man has everything to fear from having to state his position at the outset.
Indeed, in the Glasgow High Court only this week some gentlemen were asked to account for the fact that they were in a motor car containing the tools of robbery—masks, gloves, tools and housebreaking equipment. Their explanation was "It must have flown in the windie". It was because they were required to give an explanation at the time, and could not or did not do so, but gave a false one when they saw what the evidence was that their conviction was assured. I believe that nothing is more in favour of an innocent man than the right to state his position immediately, and that nothing is more harmful to a guilty one who is trying to falsify his defence.

Mr. Buchan: What about Paddy Meehan?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should necessarily raise that matter. As I appeared for Meehan, and as at the outset he made a judicial statement of his innocence, that reinforces the fact that an opportunity ought to be given to do so in all cases.

Mr. Foulkes: What happened to him?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Due to the wise discretion of the right hon. Member for Craigton, he was pardoned.

Mr. Dewar: If, for example, someone who is about to appear within a few minutes is handed a petition which says that safebreaking took place within a period of, say, three days, how can he produce an alibi if he is innocent when he does not know when it was alleged that the crime was committed? What arrangements do the Government envisage to give that kind of information?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman will know very well that the defeat of alibi is normally "How do you remember what you were doing on 21 January?" when one is being asked a question on 5 May, if that is possible under the 110-day rule. But to be able to say "Well, I know where I was yesterday, and if you go to granny she will tell you that I was at tea with her" is a much more convincing alibi which will be checked at the time.
I turn to the question of detention. Through the recommendation of the Thomson committee, detention has been enlarged by only two hours. I want to make it absolutely plain that the leader in The Times is an indication of the sort of situation in which prejudice to the Bill has been shown. It is headed "The wrong Scottish precedent". It says:
Westminster is still responsible for Scottish legislation. It has the duty to scrutinise proposed Scottish law to ensure that it does not offend against any basic principles of law or practice that should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom.
find that an extraordinary concept. We are proposing that in Scotland one may—to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser)

which I prefer—be "arrested without charge" or "temporarily arrested". Whereas in England, under section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, one may be arrested, detained and questioned without charge for 24 hours, for Scotland we are proposing six hours.
If that detention is on a serious matter —and hon. Members do not need to represent English constituencies to know this—one can be arrested without limit of time and without charge subject only to habeas corpus if it is ever applied. The powers we seek are infinitely less than powers which have never been the subject of complaint from the National Council for Civil Liberties in England. I, therefore, do not understand the argument that we are leading the English down a dangerous alleyway and I reject it.
I turn now to the matter of tape recording during detention which was raised with great sincerity by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). We have arranged two experiments—in Dundee and Falkirk—which started this week. In those experiments three tape recorders simultaneously record, with a time clock, three separate tapes. The tapes cannot be fudged. One will be retained by the police, one will be retained by the court and one will be given to the accused person.
These experiments are not intended as a means of procrastination. They constitute a serious attempt—started by the Labour Government—to record examination or questioning which occurs when a person is at the disadvantage of being alone and the only witness to what he says. I trust that whatever conclusion my hon. and learned Friend may have come to about the English experiment he will take it from me that the Scottish experiment is genuine and sincere. I hope that it will become general practice before long.
I noted that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steele) objected on principle to detention. His principles are so strong that when the issue of detention was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee on 14 December 1979 he made a lengthy speech of four lines in which he did not mention the principle of detention. It was not


mentioned by any other Liberal Member of Parliament either. I am not, therefore, entirely impressed by the concept of his principle.
A large number of people pretend to high-minded thoughts on these matters which are the law in other parts of the United Kingdom and which have not been objected to in those parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment tabled by the Opposition deals with the question whether the powers of detention and search will lessen respect for the police or damage relations between the police and the public. That is an important issue.
I regret that there are people who regard the police as hostile. Such people regard anyone who wears a police uniform, whoever he may be, as hostile. I greatly regret that. I have seen examples of it. Anything that we can do to prevent such an attitude is important. I regret that a large number of people, by their words and actions, foster just such an attitude among young people, whether they intend to do so or not.
I do not believe that the police will use these or any other powers to harass young people to create generation gaps, but I am certain that no one who is in favour of civil liberties could base his thoughts on the principle that any law of the land which persons chose to regard as an excuse to be antagonistic towards the police would have a foundation of law for long.
There are difficulties in cities and in urban situations, there are differences of emphasis to many things, and we must always try to overcome them. But nothing which is said in the House or elsewhere which tries to generate false fears and to create a bad image of those who have the thankless task of trying to keep the peace and the law is helpful in that regard.
A number of hon. Members spoke of matters which gave them concern. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for his helpful contribution to a Conservative Bill. It is a matter of concern for all of us to attempt, in every way we can, to make football on Saturdays, or whatever day of the week, the fun that it is meant to

be. I noted his remarks about trying to sell alcohol in paper cups. I think that we would be wiser to see whether we can make a success of putting the present proposals into effect before going to the further stage. The hon. Gentleman's fears that one type of sport may be discriminated against are unfounded. Wherever it is thought to be necessary, the Secretary of State will designate with impartiality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was worried about peremptory challenges. It has always been my view, acting for the defence, that it was wrong that the defence, particularly if there are several accused, could manipulate the constitution of the jury. That will not lead to what is loosely called jury vetting. I understand that in England jury vetting is a matter for the Crown. We are talking about jury vetting by the defence. At present, there is jury vetting. The defence looks at jurors' occupations, clothes and where they live. If it thinks that they will be in favour of its client—not impartial, but in favour of its client—it will allow them. If it thinks that they will not be in favour of its client, it objects. I do not find that attractive to the concept of justice. There may be one person to whom the defence objects for some unspecified reason and it is right that it should do so, but, if it shows cause, it can object to any other persons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus said, the Bill introduces advantages for accused people. I wish that those who mind about liberties would mention them more often: the citing of witnesses for the defence, the holding of identification parades for the defence, the 40-day rule and the 12-month rule for bringing prosecutions and the "no case to answer". It is a major advance in the law of Scotland to be able to say "I have no case to answer."
The Bill has been denigrated by certain writers in the media. If it is studied by the public, they will feel safer to live in Scotland. If it is studied by those who have any sense of justice and fairness, they will understand that it is a major step forward in the protection of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 182.

Division No. 251]
AYES
[10 pm


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ford, Ben
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Freud, Clement
Morton, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Race, Reg


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rowlands, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Cook, Robin F.
Homewood, William
Spearing, Nigel


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Janner, Hon Greville
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfedder, James A.
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
White. James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Whitlock, William


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dormand, Jack
Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Douglas, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McElhone, Frank
Young, David (Bolton East)


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McKelvey, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Ted Graham.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Corrie, John
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Barry


Bendall, Vivian
Crouch, David
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hooson, Tom


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dover, Denshore
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Timothy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Faith, Mrs Shella
Lang, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Bright, Graham
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brinton, Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Luce, Richard


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian
McCusker, H.


Butler, Hon Adam
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Macfarlane, Neil


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Grist, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael
Major, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marlow, Tony




Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stainton, Keith


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Percival, Sir Ian
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Porter, George
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Mellor, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Raison, Timothy
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Rathbone, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Rifkind, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trippler, David


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Myles, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Watson, John


Neale, Gerrard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Needham, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wickenden, Keith


Nelson, Anthony
Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Michael
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Newton, Tony
Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Normanton, Tom
Skeet, T. H. H.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Speed, Keith



Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Speller Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Mr. John Cope and


Parris, Matthew
Sproat, lain
Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:ª

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 128.

Division No. 252
AYES
[10.12 pm


Alexander, Richard
Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Major, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Marlow, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blackburn, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gray, Hamish
Mellor, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Henderson, Barry
Murphy, Christopher


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Myles, David


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Tom
Neale, Gerrard


Butler, Hon Adam
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Needham, Richard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Normanton, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James A.
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sulton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian
Paisley, Rev Ian


Colvin, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parris, Matthew


Corrle, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cranborne, Viscount
Le Marchant, Spencer
Patten, John (Oxford)


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Percival, Sir Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pollock, Alexander


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Porter, George


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Eggar, Timothy
McCusker, H.
Raison, Timothy


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Rathbone, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas




Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Sproat, lain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Waller, Gary


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Rossi, Hugh
Steen, Anthony
Watson, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Silvester, Fred
Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sims, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Skeet, T. H. H.
Trippier, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Mr. John Wakeham and


Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. John Cope


Speller Tony




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Maxton, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Foster, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freud, Clement
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Graham, Ted
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ron(Edinburgh, Leith)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Race, Reg


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rowlands, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Cook, Robin F.
Homewood, William
Spearing, Nigel


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Janner, Hon Greville
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merloneth)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thomas Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Whitlock, William


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton East)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank



Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McKelvey, William
Mr. George Morton and


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Joseph Dean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Younger relating to the committal of the Criminal Justice (Scotland)

Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees) and Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees), the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] be considered by a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Younger.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the motion on the draft Maintenance Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980. The two are linked.

Mr. Rossi: The main purpose of the order is to bring, so far as possible, the matrimonial law administered by magistrates' courts into line with the law being administered by the divorce court under the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. At present we have the anomaly that the High Court may deal more generously in terms of financial provision where there is a divorce than the magistrates may in respect of those who remain married. It is the aim of the order to achieve some consistency between the two.
The order also creates new powers for the protection of battered wives and children as well as amending provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. We are concerned with the enforcement of orders made by magistrates' courts in civil matters.
The present law about summary matrimonial proceedings is contained in the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which empowers magistrates' courts to deal in a limited fashion with family relationships during a period of breakdown of a marriage which is not necessarily permanent or irretrievable. The new order will supersede the 1945 Act and make changes that have become desirable since the new divorce law came into operation in April 1979. In doing so, it follows provisions of part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.
I now turn to the main provisions of the order. It is proposed that in future there should be five grounds—instead of the present nine for a wife or four for a husband—on which one spouse may apply for a maintenance order against the other,

comprising the four grounds contained in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 and the additional ground of adultery. Those four grounds are failure to maintain a spouse, failure to maintain a child, desertion and behaviour which is such that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
In adding the ground of adultery, the order will be in line with the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which follows Scottish but not English precedent in that adultery is in itself a ground for divorce or judicial separation. It has been argued in relation to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 that the ground of "unreasonable behaviour" is sufficiently wide to encompass adultery, and there is great force in that argument. However, I am faced with the Matrimonial Causes Order, which makes adultery a ground for seeking the dissolution of a marriage in Northern Ireland. A fortiori adultery must therefore be a ground for living apart and accordingly for applying for financial provision. However, I have gone somewhat further in the other direction.
Under present law, an applicant who has committed adultery cannot obtain maintenance for herself. It is no longer acceptable to public opinion generally that the single act of adultery by a wife should be regarded as sufficient to disqualify her automatically from all financial relief, especially as adultery is not a bar to an award of alimony or maintenance in divorce proceedings. The order therefore removes the bar where the parties remain married. However, I should add that there will be nothing to prevent a magistrate from having regard to a spouse's adultery in assessing proper financial provision.
In addition to the existing power to order maintenance by periodic payments, the order gives magistrates' courts a new power to order a lump sum payment, not exceeding £500, in matrimonial proceedings. That is to be found in article 4.
The criteria for making orders whether for periodic payments or a lump sum are laid down in article 5. They follow those in the divorce legislation and, give guidance as to when a spouse's conduct in relation to the marriage is relevant to determining whether he or she should be


awarded financial provision, and how much. Generally speaking, the court will approach the issue on the basis of the parties' and the children's needs, and conduct will be taken into account only where there is something in the conduct of one party which makes it unjust to disregard it.
Of course, it is inevitable that when a family splits up one cannot place the parties in the same financial position as they would have enjoyed had there been no breakdown: instead of a single household, there will be two. The courts must simply do the best they can in all the circumstances, having regard to income, earning capacity and other financial resources, needs and obligations, the previous standard of living, the parties' ages, the duration of the marriage, any physical or mental disability, contributions made to the welfare of the family and any other matter which is relevant, such as a child's education or training. Indeed, one of the outstanding features of the order is the way in which it improves the law relating to children.
Where either party to a marriage applies for an order for financial provision, if there is a minor child of the family the court cannot dismiss or make a final order on the application until it has decided whether to exercise its powers over children and, if so, in what manner. Those powers include that of giving legal custody of a child to either of the spouses or to a parent of that child who is not a party to the marriage, obtaining social workers' reports at any stage of the hearing, postponing the coming into effect of a custody order and allowing grandparents to apply for access to a grandchild where a custody order is made in favour of a parent or step-parent. A custody order may also make provision for the retention by the spouse who is not given legal custody of such parental rights and duties—except the right to actual custody—as the court may specify. In addition, in exceptional circumstances, a child may be placed under supervision or committed to the care of the Department of Health and Social Services if the home conditions are undesirable.
The court may feel, on considering a social worker's report, that a child's interests are not likely to be adequately safeguarded by his parent or step-parent.

In this event, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to look after the child's interests. The guardian ad litem may be a social worker or, exceptionally, a lawyer. This provision—which will be found in article 14(5)—coupled with the explicit statement in article 17 that the welfare of the child is to be the first and paramount consideration in the exercise by a magistrates' court of its powers in relation to a child's custody or upbringing, underlines the dramatic changes embodied in the order concerning the new duties conferred on magistrates' courts in respect of children.
There are, perhaps, one or two other matters that I should mention at this stage. These include a new procedure—under articles 8 and 9—for obtaining a magistrates' order where the parties are in agreement about financial provision or where they have agreed to separate and the respondent is making payments to the applicant. Efforts to reconcile husband and wife are encouraged. I think that we must be realistic and recognise that so long as the spouses are at arm's length any attempt by the court to reconcile them is likely to be unfruitful. But the court should be alert to encourage any movement towards reconciliation that becomes apparent. Article 28 therefore provides for adjournment of the proceedings either where, on the case coming up, the parties indicate that they want further time to try to resolve their differences or where, at any time during the course of the proceedings, the court perceives a reasonable chance of reconciliation.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Does not the Minister agree that the very venue for hearing matrimonial disputes mitigates against a reasonable chance of reconciliation? Would he not agree that the sooner that we move away from dealing with domestic matters in courts that deal with criminal cases, the sooner it may be possible for such parties to achieve reconciliation?

Mr. Rossi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will appreciate that by the time parties to a breakdown get to court there is invariably a long and bitter history. They have often tried time and time again to save their marriage. It is usually only when they see no hope that they have recourse to lawyers and to the court.

Mr. Brynmor John: With respect, I do not think that the Minister has answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). He was pointing out that a matrimonial dispute is a domestic proceeding. However, such cases are heard in courts that deal with criminal cases, and this militates against reconciliation.

Mr. Rossi: I appreciated the two points raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). His first point was whether there would be a better chance of reconciliation in a different atmosphere. I was seeking to address my mind to a long dispute where it is unlikely that any atmosphere would be conducive to a reconciliation. The hon. Gentleman, who is as experienced in the law as I am, will have seen streams of people who have reached the final stage that we are discussing and will know their conditions.
Family courts come under consideration from time to time. It is possible that a different, more informal atmosphere might be more conducive to reconciliation. It is a remote possibility, but we can consider it in future. I make no promise of an overnight change in the way in which magistrates' courts deal with these issues.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of State has already been interrupted in the course of his address. I should like to take him back to a point which I did not appreciate that he had left. He referred to cases involving voluntary agreements between the parties regarding the payment of maintenance or the like. He appears to have left that point. If he does not intend to return to it, will he refer to the extent to which it is desirable or appropriate for such voluntary agreements to be modified by a court?

Mr. Rossi: I had not quite concluded my comments on that. The provision for confirmation by the court of voluntary agreements makes it unnecessary for the parties to thrash out their matrimonial differences in public and in depth. They can reach agreement, with or without the help of third parties, and go to the court to ask it to confirm that agreement. Nothing prevents either party, at a later date, asking the court to vary the agreement because of a change in

circumstances. I hope that that explanation meets the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Powell: Is there also a power in the order for the court, of its own initiative, to vary such agreements?

Mr. Rossi: There is a general power for a court not to accept an agreement if it thinks that it is unconscionable. The court will have grave regard to whether adequate financial arrangements are made for a child who is not able to speak for itself. When the court is confronted by two adults, presumably acting on proper advice, it would be slow to upset an agreement.
Before I gave way to a series of interventions, I was dealing with reconciliation. I said that the court may, at any time, seek to bring about a reconciliation if it believes that there is a reasonable chance of one. Under the order, the court is empowered to request an intermediary to seek to help to reconcile the parties during an adjournment. The intermediary might be a social worker or somebody else such as a clergyman who is acceptable to both parties.
The negotiation of a reconciliation will not take place in front of the magistrates in the atmosphere of a criminal court. The parties can go away and talk to a matrimonial counsellor or a clergyman in whom they have confidence to help to resolve their differences. Perhaps that is a better atmosphere.
I now come to a most important innovation in the order. This is the provisions allowing magistrates to make orders for the protection of a party to a marriage or a child of the family. The orders are, of course, available to husbands as much as to wives. I should say first of all that articles 18, 19 and 21 have been substantially recast since they were first published in proposal form. This has been done in the light of helpful criticism and of comments in legal periodicals on corresponding English legislation. The effect of this revision will be to give magistrates in Northern Ireland stronger powers in making protection orders than are available to magistrates in England and Wales.
The grounds for seeking both an order prohibiting the molestation of a spouse


or child and an order excluding the violent spouse from the matrimonial home or some other place where the spouse is living are simply two—first, that violence has been used or threatened and, secondly, that the order sought is necessary to protect or to prevent the molestation of the applicant or child. It is proposed to call the first of these orders a personal protection order and the second an exclusion order. In the case of an exclusion order, an alternative to the first ground—that violence has been used or threatened—is that the respondent has contravened a personal protection order.
The original published draft set out a number of optional provisions that the court may include in an exclusion order. Most of those are necessary in the majority of cases. To avoid the danger of any of them being inadvertently omitted from a court order, or orders being rendered unduly long, we now propose to make them statutory consequences of an exclusion order.
The range of places from which a respondent may be excluded by an exclusion order is wide. They include not only premises other than the matrimonial home—for example a refuge where the applicant or a child of the family is living —but any specified adjacent area such as a street or a block of flats. In this connection it will, of course, be important for the area to be defined in such a way as not to interfere with the reasonable conduct of the respondent's ordinary way of life.
There are to be six statutory consequences of an exclusion order. I think that they are worth listing. First, the respondent must leave the home as soon as reasonably practicable. He is then prohibited from entering it except as far as the court allows him to go there to get his personal effects. The respondent must allow the applicant and her children to enter the home and have peaceful possession of it and its furnishings. He must not sell the house or surrender its lease, and his proprietary rights in this respect are temporarily suspended. He must not damage the house or interfere with any services in it such as the central heating system or the electricity supply. Finally, he must not remove any furnishings from the house or sell or damage or

destroy any furnishings. Where the respondent has damaged or interfered with the home or its furnishings or services, the court may order him to repair the damage or pay the applicant the cost of having such repairs done. These rules apply equally to damage caused by a person claiming through the respondent—for example, a relative or mistress.
A personal protection order or exclusion order may last in the first place for a maximum of six months—there is little point in requiring a woman to return frequently to court to have her orders renewed—and they can further be extended on any number of occasions it the dispute between the parties has not been resolved by other means, such as through divorce proceedings. In this connection, it is perhaps worth drawing attention to the power of the magistrates' courts to impose conditions in an exclusion order over who is to make mortgage, hire-purchase or other payments.
One other important change has been brought about as the result of the consultation period for the draft order. Instead of the court having a discretion to attach a power of arrest to an exclusion order in some cases and a justice of the peace having power to issue an arrest warrant in others, a statutory power of arrest is attached to all personal protection orders and exclusion orders. The order requires notice of all such orders to be given to the appropriate divisional commander of police.
Under article 19, a constable has power to arrest a person who breaches a personal protection order by molesting the person protected by the order or who breaches an exclusion order in specified ways. The article provides for what is to be done with an arrested person and, where he is brought before the court, the options open to the court. In particular, the attraction by article 19 (2) of section 131 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 means that when an arrested person is brought to a police station the officer in charge must inquire into the complaint with a view to deciding whether or not to release him at once, either unconditionally or subject to a condition that he returns to the police station for further investigation of the alleged breach of the order or that he appears before a court. Of course, we are concerned here with a power of arrest and


not—as would be the case where a warrant had been issued—with a duty to arrest. It is expected that the power of arrest will be exercised only where the respondent is, or has recently been, in actual breach of the order when the police came on to the scene, or is persisting in or likely to renew an attempted breach.
The only remaining observation about this aspect of the order is to do with the word "molest", which is used in preference to the expression "use or threaten to use violence". We think that the wording in the order will be more effective in tackling various forms of aggressiveness on the part of spouses. I have in mind the case of a women who has been badly beaten and who may be put in reasonable apprehension of further injury by actions on the part of her husband falling short of actual violence or direct threats of violence. These provisions in the order thus give, for the first time in Northern Ireland, a summary means of obtaining relief in cases of domestic violence or wife battering. I believe that they will be widely welcomed.
I believe, too, that the order as a whole will be well received, because it will for the first time arm magistrates' courts with the powers that are necessary to deal adequately with the complexities of the cases coming before them.

Mr. James Molyneaux: This order sits, as it were, on the shoulders of the major changes which were made in matrimonial law in Northern Ireland under the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which reached final form after extensive discussions with all sorts of interested bodies, the study of a vast amount of submissions and constructive debates here in Parliament.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to Ministers in the former Government, who took great care to ensure that the new legislation was both fair and workable. In looking at the order before us, one notice that the present Northern Ireland Ministers have also paid a great deal of attention to what has been said, written and put before them in various ways. There are striking differences between the original proposals and the draft order itself.
In addition to the stronger powers for magistrates, to which the Minister rightly

drew our attention, article 18(3)(ii) of the proposals provided for certain safeguards relating to what was simply referred to as "the matrimonial home". As the Minister has briefly mentioned, that has been put right, because in article 18(2)(ii) the scope and description has been widened to include premises where the applicant or the child may be living at a particular time. Obviously, that is much more satisfactory.
Similarly, article 19(1)(c) and (d) of the proposals referred only to the matrimonial home. In the present order, the words "or other premises specified" have been substituted and added, and we welcome the change.
In article 32(2)(a) there is a remedy for the serious defect which, in my opinion, existed in the original proposals, which appeared to me to leave out of account altogether the free movement that one would expect within the United Kingdom. Problems could have been created by trying, as we did in the past, to treat constituent parts of the United Kingdom as watertight compartments for the purposes of this type of legislation. We are glad that that trap has been avoided.
The point which the Government have not been able to concede relates to common law marriages—if those words are not a contradiction in themselves. We are inclined to agree with the Government that this subject should be dealt with generally and not in this one particular.
As the Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation pointed out, we are coming to the end of a massive amount of work on the reform of family law in Northern Ireland. I believe that the former Government, the present Government and all of us who have given close attention to the many problems involved have established a divorce code for Northern Ireland broadly in line with that which exists in the rest of Great Britain. But one has to say—thankfully in many respects—that it is superior to that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

10 51 pm

Mr. Brynmor John: I, too, welcome the order. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) feel a considerable sense of déjà vu in this context, because


I piloted the domestic proceedings legislation for England and Wales through the Commons and my hon. Friend introduced the proposals when he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office.
I welcome the strengthening of the proposals. We must recognise that nearly every Act can and should be strengthened where experience teaches that that is necessary.
I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to predict where a reconciliation will take place. I had a rule of thumb—which I am sure that the Minister of State also has—that the greater the psysical violence, the more likelihood there was of a reconciliation rather than the converse. I believe that the atmosphere of the court being shared with that of the criminal jurisdiction will not inhibit reconciliation unless the court uses the question of reconciliation as a weapon in the sense of ordering an endless adjournment of the case on the pretext that a reconciliation might take place. That would be an unfair use of the prerogative of the court.
The principle of agreed maintenance, which, if I remember rightly, was introduced by a former hon. Member, Mrs. Helene Hayman, established the registration of agreed maintenance and its variation. The other suggestion which was made in the earlier proceedings and which is of paramount importance concerns the exclusion order.
I agree with the Minister that that is an important issue. It is important that the parties to a separation order should have ready and quick access to the courts in cases of non-molestation. Often the violence and the threat which gives rise to the need to apply to the courts are ill served by the procedure of applying to the High Court for such an order. That often took time, whereas the need was immediate and more easily served by application to the domestic court.
I also welcome the amendment in the order in the light of experience. I noticed that the Minister, throughout his paragraph on this part of the measure, referred to the question of "he" having been excluded from the matrimonial home and "he" having caused the violence. It is not unknown for the wife to be just as capable of physical violence

and molestation. I take it that "he" equals "she" in this instance.

Mr. Rossi: As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will know that in legal terms the male always embraces the female.

Mr. John: Only when it is expressly said so, and, I think, only with the permission of the Minister of State.
The second point to be drawn to the attention of the House is that an order can be made for access to the children of the marriage by the grandparents. That amendment was introduced by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in the original England and Wales legislation. It is designed to meet a specific need where often the parents use the child as a weapon against the grand-parents.
There are some fairly distressing circumstances, particularly where one of the natural parents of the child has since died and there is a second marriage in which one of the spouses is not keen on allowing the original grandparents access. Where the court thinks fit, that is an excellent idea. I hope that the Minister of State will say how it has been used in the two years that have elapsed since I introduced the legislation. But perhaps it is a little early for statistics to have been prepared.
At the time of the England and Wales legislation, we took the view that there was no need to define or further to specify in the order the matrimonial home, as it would become apparent in the course of proceedings what the matrimonial home was. I ask the hon. Gentleman what experience, as opposed to what representations were made, in Northern Ireland leads him to define in articles 18(2) and 19 the matrimonial home in statute form, because it has been a cherished belief that the magistrates are best fitted to sort out that matter.
The final point is that, during the course of the England and Wales proceedings, an undertaking was given to separate affiliation appeals from the criminal side of the Crown courts and to keep them as distinct as possible. A formal amendment to that effect was resisted on the basis that the courts would do their best to effect such a separation. I wonder whether the Minister has any information on how that has worked.
Subject to those questions, I have nothing but praise for the order. It makes a welcome amendment to the law and a welcome addition to the rights of the spouses in a marriage which in the final analysis has not worked out.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the House for the general welcome that it has given to the order.
As to the specific and detailed questions that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has raised, as he has half anticipated in giving me the answer it is early days to be able to give a detailed analysis of the effect of the measures to which he referred. But I shall make inquiries, and if there is any information available I shall certainly pass it on to him because I know of his deep interest in these matters.
Implied criticism was made of two matters. One was not so much of the order but of the way in which I presented the aspect of it relating to reconciliation. I should perhaps have mentioned that the Finer report on one-parent families carried out a careful analysis into all the past legislative attempts that had been made to deal with this difficult problem and came to the conclusion that so far we had not been terribly successful. When a marriage has reached that stage in breakdown, it is difficult for third parties to intervene to mend something that the parties themselves are not able to mend, although one should never give up trying. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently well when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in an intervention. It is a point that the House should bear in mind.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) raised the question of common law marriages. He indicated that there were no provisions in the order to deal with violence against a woman in that position. I am very conscious of that omission, and the matter has exercised my mind to a considerable degree. When I inherited the draft order and the proposals prepared by the outgoing Labour Administration, I was faced with paragraph 11, headed "Cohabitees", in which the previous Government stated that they had decided not to include cohabitees where domestic violence was

concerned. It was a consultative document.
When I came to deal with the matter, I felt that it would be unfair to amend the order to include cohabitees when the consultative document had stated specifically that that would not be the case. Those who might have wished to make representations against the inclusion of cohabitees could have said that I had taken a course without proper consultation and that they had been misled by the document.
The alternatives before me were either to enter into a fresh period of consultation, and lose very many months, or to take no action at this stage. I felt that it would be undesirable to delay this necessary order to give the protection clearly needed by wives by entering into a fresh period of consultation on cohabitees. Personally, I see no reason why a woman should not be protected from physical violence, irrespective of whether she is married. It is an open door.
I was interested to discover in the debate whether I would be besieged on all sides by hon. Members insisting that I should introduce a fresh order to include and deal with cohabitees. I am in the hands of the House. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies should say whether they regard this as a desirable measure of further reform of the law. I shall take careful note of all representations.

Mr. John: What representations has the Minister received upon the basis that the Government of the day had drafted the order in favour of the exclusion of cohabitees? What was the number of representations, and what was the general tenor of the arguments?

Mr. Rossi: I received an impressive lobby from women's organisations representing people from Queen's university, Belfast, the Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation and other battered wives organisations. They made representations to extend the order to cover cohabitees. I felt reluctantly that I could not accede to their request, for the reasons that I have given. I did not feel that I should amend legislation without proper consultation when the outgoing Government had said categorically that the matter would not be covered by the order. I felt bound by that, and that is the present position. I


am open to representations. I shall listen to them most attentively because I am sympathetic to that point of view.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Maintenance Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (BANKRUPTCY)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That the draft Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the motion on the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980.

Mr. Shaw: The main body of law on bankruptcy in Northern Ireland dates back to enactments of 1857 and 1872, and the last major amendment of those enactments took place over 50 years ago. I feel sure that the House will accept that this legislation is in need of some alteration and updating after such a period of time.
In general, it is the intention of the Government that the insolvency law of Northern Ireland should accord as closely as possible with the law of England and Wales, which is at present being examined in depth by the Insolvency Law Review Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Cork. In view of this review it would not be prudent to embark on a comprehensive modernisation of the law in Northern Ireland until the report of that committee has been received and considered by the Government. In addition, bankruptcy legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom will be required when the EEC draft bankruptcy convention, at present at an advanced stage of negotiation, has been adopted.
Notwithstanding those reasons for not undertaking a major measure of bankruptcy law reform in Northern Ireland at this time, the transfer of responsibility for the office of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy from the Northern Ireland Supreme Court to the Secretary of State, effected by the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978—which came into operation in April 1979—makes it desirable to put into effect now the recommendation of the Committee on the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland under the chairmanship of the late Lord


MacDermott regarding the transfer of that office to the Department of Commerce. It is also recommended that the transfer to that Department of the non-judicial functions of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland in relation to bankruptcy should take place at the same time.
It has been decided, therefore, to combine with the legislation necessary to effect this transfer provisions which will deal with certain aspects of the existing law which are urgently in need of being brought into harmony with the law of England and Wales. The opportunity is also being taken to include amendments and repeals of the Irish Bankruptcy Acts which will enable these cumbersome statutes to be abbreviated and ultimately consolidated.
The main interest in the order for the general public is probably in relation to the changes in the law regarding the discharge of bankrupts. Most debtors adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland, unless they are able to make an offer of composition acceptable to their creditors and have their adjudications annulled, remain undischarged from their bankruptcy for the rest of their lives, because the discharge provisions are much more stringent than in England and Wales. To obtain his discharge or, to use the language of the Irish Bankruptcy Acts, to obtain from the court a "certificate of conformity", a bankrupt in Northern Ireland must apply to the court and establish that a dividend of at least 50p in the pound has been paid to his creditors, or that his bankruptcy or the failure to pay such a dividend has arisen from circumstances for which he cannot justly be held responsible.
The order introduces the law of discharge as it now stands in England and Wales, following the Insolvency Act 1976.
An undischarged bankrupt adjudged bankrupt more than 10 years before the order comes into force will be automatically discharged on that date. If a person became bankrupt more than five years but less than 10 years before that date, he will be automatically discharged on the tenth aniversary of his adjudication. A debtor adjudged bankrupt after the order is in force will be automatically discharged on the fifth aniversary of his adjudication if, when his public examina-

tion is concluded or dispensed with, the court so orders.
Every debtor adjudged bankrupt after the operative date, or who has been made bankrupt within the preceding five years, will have his case considered by the court, with a view to his discharge either immediately or after a period or conditionally agreeing to make payments to his creditors. Such a review will take place during the year after the fifth aniversary of his adjudication, on the application of the Official Assignee, without the bankrupt having to take any initiative.
In addition to these new provisions for granting a discharge without the bankrupt having to apply for a discharge, the order permits a bankrupt who is anxious to be discharged at an earlier date than he would be under those provisions to apply to the court for an order of discharge. On such an application, the court will have a wide discretion to grant a discharge either immediately or after a period of suspension or conditionally on the bankrupt agreeing to make payments to his creditors. An immediate, unconditional discharge may not be granted where certain kinds of misconduct by the bankrupt have been proved.
The order also brings Northern Ireland legislation on the public examination of bankrupts into line with that in England and Wales and gives the court the power to dispense with the public examination of a bankrupt.
Under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which established the new Northern Ireland court service, responsibility for the office of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy was transferred from the Northern Ireland Supreme Court to the Secretary of State, who delegated the administrative responsibility for the office to the Department of Commerce. As mentioned earlier, the order now formally transfers that responsibility to the Department of Commerce and places it in a similar position to the Department of Trade in relation to the Official Receiver service. As a follow-through to the transfer, the order makes provision for the payment of funds arising from bankrupts' estates into the insolvency account of the Department of Commerce, which was established under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 for the funds of insolvent companies. The audit of the accounts of the Official Assignee,


hitherto carried out by the court, will become the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. Provision is also made for the declaration and payment of dividends to creditors by the Official Assignee.
I should explain that in Northern Ireland creditors have never exercised the right given to them in the 1872 Act to transfer the administration of a bankrupt's estate from the Official Assignee to a trustee appointed by them, and in practice, therefore, all estates are administered by the Official Assignee. The right to appoint a trustee is, however, being preserved, and the order contains an article adapting the order to an administration by a trustee.
The order provides for the abolition of the post of bankruptcy messenger, who was formerly appointed by the Bankruptcy Judge. The name of the post is misleading. His functions mainly relate to the taking and securing possession of the bankrupt's property and executing warrants of the court. He acts on the directions of the Official Assignee and in practice he is effectively a member of his staff. The need, therefore, for the separate appointment no longer exists. His functions will continue to be discharged by the present holder of the office as an officer of the Official Assignee's office.
The law relating to the proof of debts in bankruptcy in Northern Ireland is at present contained in many lengthy sections of the Bankruptcy Acts, which have caused difficulties for creditors, particularly in relation to contingent claims. It is important that that branch of the law, which is applied also to the liquidation of insolvent companies, should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the order sweeps away the old sections and replaces them with provisions following those which have operated in England and Wales for over a century.
The machinery for dealing with creditors' claims is also assimilated to that operating in England and Wales. Henceforth the Official Assignee will admit or reject claims, subject to the right of an aggrieved creditor to apply to the court. The numerous statutory provisions relating to preferential payments in bank-

ruptcy at present scattered through a number of miscellaneous enactments have also been consolidated in article 19.
Another of the more important provisions of the order is the increase of certain monetary limits to bring them into line with those contained in the Insolvency Act 1976. For example, the minimum debt required to support a creditor's petition in bankruptcy is raised from £40 to £200. The order also contains power to alter those limits by order.
The opportunity has also been taken to tidy up the statute book by making numerous minor amendments and repeals of obsolete provisions, which will make the law more easily comprehended and more in accord with modern practice. It will at the same time facilitate a consolidation of the law on this subject.
Generally, the principles of bankruptcy law in Northern Ireland are similar to those in Great Britain, and the overall purpose of the order is to carry out some of the more pressing changes required to bring the law into line with England and Wales.
I commend this first draft order to the House.
I turn now to the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before the House on 11 March.
The order comes within the provisions of section 38 (2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which enables the law of any part of the United Kingdom to be amended in consequence of any provisions of Northern Ireland legislative measures. By virtue of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, a measure also includes an Order in Council, and the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, which I hope the House will approve, is such an order. The order contains only provisions consequential to the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I will, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take the two orders, which the House is considering together, in the reverse order to that in which the Under-Secretary of State took them.
I think that we owe a few moments' attention to the consequential order, since it was the subject of a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which attention is very properly drawn on the Order Paper. The reason why the Joint Committee reported upon this order was that it believed that its explanatory note ought to explain when the principal order, if I may so describe it, was expected to be made, as the two clearly hung together.
With the greatest possible respect to the Joint Select Committee, I feel that that was a rather captious objection, since it is difficult to see how the precise date could have been designated in advance, whereas it is clearly convenient that the House should have the two orders before it simultaneously and that they should be approved by the House on the same occasion, as I think they will be later this evening.
I do, however, feel that there was an objection, unnoted by the Joint Select Committee, which could be brought against the explanatory note of that order. Indeed, it may be that in his last remarks, if I caught them aright, the Under-Secretary of State fell into some error. The explanatory note states that the consequential order is being made
in consequence of a bankruptcy amendment order"—
that is, the main order which has just been moved—
and in some cases, earlier legislation".
I do not think it is proper practice that vague expressions of that kind—
in some cases, earlier legislation"—
should find a place in an explanatory note upon a draft statutory instrument. Before the House agrees to amendments of United Kingdom law for the purpose of conformity with changes which are being made—or which in some cases, apparently, have already been made in the past—in the law applying to Northern Ireland, we ought to be told exactly what those past changes are which require that amendment. So I hope that the reference of the Joint Select Committee to this order may not have been entirely unfruitful for future notice.
The Minister was, of course, quite right in saying that we have this rather curious procedure by double order

because some of the consequential amendments are to the law of the United Kingdom as a whole and, therefore, have to be made—even during this interim period—under different powers, and consequently by a separate statutory instrument.
That said, I come to the main order, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, which, I believe, has an importance for the reform of the law of Northern Ireland greater than would have been guessed from the somewhat unexciting, if not uninspired, description with which the Minister commended it to the House. Its general effect cannot be better described than by words that I take from the useful explanatory memorandum which the Department provided for hon. Members and others studying the proposals. It said that the order is
part of the process of harmonising the law in the two jurisdictions".
That is a process which my hon. Friends and I believe is of great importance and benefit to Northern Ireland and which in every way we wish to promote and to support.
In this instance, it has to happen in two if not three stages. There has been a precedent for that in the case of company law. The House will remember that a Northern Ireland Companies Order came before it a year or two ago, which effected an approximation of Northern Ireland company law to the company law of Great Britain and was in a sense a preparation for a reform of the company law of the United Kingdom in the Companies Bill which is before Parliament in this Session. That Bill contains what my hon. Friends and I have come to describe as the "theft clause"—I think the clause first made its appearance in a measure called the Theft Bill 1978. It is a clause that enables the precise effect of a Great Britain Bill to be applied by negative procedure in Northern Ireland. Thus, in the context of companies legislation we shall have achieved uniformity of the law throughout the kingdom in three stages: first, there was the approximation stage by a Northern Ireland order; secondly, there was the consolidation of Northern Ireland law, which the first stage made possible; then, thirdly, there is still to come the enactment for Northern Ireland of the new code of company law which Parliament


is engaged in creating for Great Britain in this Session.
To that process we have, I think and hope, a parallel developing here. In this order we have the first stage, producing the rough approximation, as it were, between Northern Ireland bankruptcy law, which is well over a century old, and the still rather obsolete bankruptcy law in England and Wales. I was glad to hear the Minister say that this stage and this order will be followed by a consolidation stage. The hon. Gentleman also forecast that there is a third stage to follow. Sir Kenneth Cork is presiding over a committee which is considering on a broad basis the law of insolvency and bankruptcy. The legislation which will follow in due course upon the report of that committee is legislation which ought to be uniform—the principles which it enshrines ought to be applied uniformly—throughout the United Kingdom.
It may be that when that legislation is eventually enacted we shall have outgrown the "theft clause". It may be that we shall then be legislating for Northern Ireland in the proper manner as we have been legislating earlier today for another part of the kingdom—namely, Scotland—by way of Act of Parliament. However, whichever way it comes, the result will be a uniform code of bankruptcy and insolvency law for the whole of the kingdom.
In the order that the House has just passed, there were differences—appreciable, if not substantial—between the code of law in Northern Ireland on matrimonial and domestic matters and the codes in Scotland and in England and Wales. Those differences are fully justifiable by the social habits, points of view and histories of the respective parts of the kingdom. However, when we are dealing with the law covering insolvency and bankruptcy, there can, in the long run, be no justification for local variations. There is every reason why those who enter into relationships as debtors and creditors in any one part of the kingdom or between different parts of it should be covered by the same legal provisions. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome the tripartite process of which the order represents the first stage.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in acknowledging the hard work done by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland in studying the order; and we have been provided with the outcome of the important discussions which took place between the representatives of the Law Society and the Department of Commerce. It is right that allusion should be made to those discussions, because the Law Society drew attention to some potentially controversial aspects of the proposals, on some of which aspects the Law Society was only partially satisfied by the order before the House.
Since, in some measure, the Law Society and the Department in combination have been doing our preparatory work for us, it is right that the three main points left for further consideration should briefly be put on the record.
The first point raised by the Law Society was the position of the Official Assignee, as an official of the Department of Commerce, in his relationship with his home Department. The society drew attention to the peculiar nature of that relationship, in that the Official Assignee would be acting both in a court or fiduciary capacity and also as a member of the staff, and subject to the instructions and requirements, of the Department of Commerce.
Its objection to that arrangement was withdrawn only on the assurance that, in asking for information from the Official Assignee under the provisions of the order, the Department of Commerce would do so only through an official of the level of assistant secretary or above and that the information would be sought only for the purpose of confirming that the Official Assignee was fully and duly carrying out his statutory duty, and not for any additional or ulterior motive. On those assurances, which I have taken the opportunity to write into the record of the House, the Law Society of Northern Ireland was satisfied, though only—it would be fair to add—barely satisfied.
There is, it must be admitted, an uneasy relationship between the new duties of the new Official Assignee and the Department of Commerce—there is a certain parallel, though not a perfect parallel, with the Department of Trade in


England and Wales—and that is something which we shall watch as time goes by.
The second point that I put on record is the Law Society's objection to the fact that the Department of Commerce will be making the regulations for fixing fees for the Official Assignee's services. It felt that there was something a bit endogamous about the Department of Commerce being thus mistress, so to speak, in its own house. It was pointed out, of course, that regulations fixing fees, and from time to time altering and presumably raising fees, at any rate in money terms, would be subject to parliamentary procedure; but I was amused by the scepticism of the Law Society in that context. It opined:
One can readily realise just what chance one is going to have to have any matter brought before the Commons.
While not elegantly expressed, that is an anxiety which we here recognise. I am not quite sure, even so, whether the Law Society understood that under the interim constitution with which we live in Northern Ireland there is no parliamentary procedure at all: it is not just a negative procedure—the possibility of a prayer; there is not any procedure at all. I have an idea that, if it had understood that, it would have been even less happy.
However, I leave that point where it is, simply because regulations must be made to fix fees. Regulations fixing fees are normally—not invariably—subject to negative procedure, and I look forward to the day when negative procedure in respect of fees fixed for Northern Ireland will mean the same as negative procedure in respect of fees fixed for the rest of the United Kingdom and when, therefore, the appropriate parliamentary safeguards will be available.
I come, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I hope that I am not unduly charging your patience—to the third point over which the Law Society was anxious. This concerned the new act of bankruptcy, which the order creates. Under article 8 (b), if the Enforcement of Judgments Office grants a stay of enforcement of a money judgment, that is equivalent to the debtor committing an act of bankruptcy. There are certain opportunities still open to the creditors, one understands, if they act quickly enough in such a case, to avert or postpone the bankruptcy. Neverthe-

less, this is a new way in which bankruptcy can be brought about and, therefore, the possibility of an arrangement, which might be more advantageous to some or all of the creditors, aborted.
There was considerable discussion, one gathers, on this point between the Law Society and the Department; and the matter was left at a point which I believe should again be put upon the record—namely, that, as
this order is a preliminary step to further legislation which will be required in a few years time once the Cork committee on insolvency has reported",
and
during that time the workings of this provision could be carefully monitored, and if the fears that the disadvantages of the provision outweigh the advantages
are realised,
fresh consideration could be given to the provision",
and, therefore, it might be allowed pro tern to stand in this order. That is about the correct balance. We should make a note that when we come again to this matter of the acts of bankruptcy in the future corpus of law on the subject we must look carefully to see whether the functioning of article 8(b) has proved on balance advantageous or disadvantageous.
Subject to those qualifications, I believe, as I said at the outset, that this order will be of great advantage to those who advise upon the law, who use the law and who are covered by the law of insolvency and bankruptcy in Northern Ireland. I express the hope that we shall very soon have the consolidating order which this order makes possible brought before the House.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I rise to make a short intervention which is really in the form of a question to my hon. Friend the Minister. I listened carefully to what he said. It raised in my mind the beginning of a question which was accentuated by the first part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend talked about the usefulness of the position in Northern Ireland being harmonised with that in Great Britain. The assumption underlying that is that there is no difference between the situation in Northern Ireland and that in Great Britain.
However, there is a difference. There is a difference in respect of the general level and the general perception of what is commonly called law and order at present. Some people mistakenly believe that the problems of law and order in Northern Ireland relate only to security, but I believe that it will be generally accepted that this is not necessarily true. If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, he indicated, first, that the law in Northern Ireland had been on the statute book for a considerable time and that the measures before us this evening would liberalise that law and would in effect make it possible for someone to be discharged from a bankruptcy at five years or shortly thereafter, which is a very much shorter period than is the present case.
The question I want to put to my hon. Friend is this. Given the difficulties that the law enforcement agencies have in Northern Ireland at present, given the fact that the prospect of long-term bankruptcy may act as a restraint on certain people who would otherwise prefer not to pay their debts, given also that someone who is made bankrupt has only five years or so to wait before he is discharged, and given the fact that law enforcement creditors may have considerable difficulty in obtaining redress within that time, what thought has my hon. Friend given to the timing of the introduction of the order?
I have no objection to the order itself, but I wonder if it is sensible to introduce it at this time, because in attempting to harmonise the position in the Province with that in the rest of the United Kingdom the assumption is being made that the two parts of the Kingdom are in all other respects identical. This is at best a questionable assumption. If it is a questionable assumption, are we right to proceed with the order at this time, or should not the order be reintroduced at a time when its operation and its chances of operation will more nearly parallel the operation of the same type of order and law on the mainland?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister in introducing the order said that its purpose was to enable us more easily to comprehend the law in relation to bankruptcy. I think that that is the exaggeration of the twentieth century, because anyone trying to read the order

certainly will not find it easy to comprehend. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with his brain power, can comprehend it, but there are some parts of the order which are incomprehensible to me.
I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) underlined some of the matters which cause concern to the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I would like to take that a step further and to ask the Minister if he is prepared to put on record the two assurances requested by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland as regards article 4. In respect of confidentiality, it is recognised that the Official Assignee is also an officer of the court. The Department has pointed out that if he considers that the provision is being abused to the detriment of debtors, he can appeal to the master in bankruptcy.
Is the Minister prepared to give us an assurance that the assignee will be intructed to take that course if there is any abuse of the confidentiality or breach of article 4? Will he also assure us that only an assistant secretary of the Department, or someone above that rank, can act for the Department in asking for information under the provision? Is the Minister prepared to come to the Dispatch Box now and to give those two assurances? Evidently the points were put to the officials when they held conversations with the Department of Commerce before the memo to Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies had been issued. It would be helpful to have those two assurances, as they would have some authority.
Article 7 states:
Whenever the cash balance standing to the credit of the account of any estate is in excess of £2,000 or such other sum as may be fixed by regulations, the Department shall credit to the account of the estate interest on the excess at such a rate as the Department and the Department of Finance may determine.
It seems that if the estate does not total £2,000, the Department of Commerce will get the interest. I am sure that the Minister is praying that all such estates will turn out to be less than £2,000 so that he does not have to pay any interest into the estate. Perhaps he could explain this subject. Does this provide a way for the Department to get its money back on the services rendered? The Minister should tell us what he has in mind.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Rights that are guaranteed to other subjects in the United Kingdom should be guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. However, perhaps the Government cannot enforce laws that have been enacted by Parliament. We know that the Government cannot enforce the law in many areas of Northern Ireland. For example, it is well known that the law against squatting is rigorously enforced in Protestant districts, and that squatters are removed. However, in areas that are republican ghettos, squatters can squat to their hearts' content. That is a fact of life. The Minister should consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said about the ability to carry out laws that have been enacted by the House.
I shall listen to the Minister's speech with great interest. I shall note whether those assurances are given or refused.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I was surprised, considering his background, that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) should make such remarks. I suggest that the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland is in a better position to comment on whether the provision is necessary for the Province.
The submissions made during the past few weeks make clear that the consolidation is welcomed. The society regards the consolidation as an advantage for the Province. It advises us not to oppose it and to look forward to the new legislation, which is seen as a preliminary step. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Peterborough should suggest a delay in bringing Northern Ireland into harmony with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Mawhinney: I was careful to say that I had no objection to the order. I was also careful not to say that it should be delayed. I said that my intervention was in the form of a question to the Minister. I wanted to know what consideration he had given to that aspect before introducing the legislation. I was careful in the way in which I put that question.

Mr. McCusker: I am glad that the hon. Member for Peterborough has

qualified what he said. When he reads what he said he may find that it comes across differently. He tended to imply that we should question whether there are differences in Northern Ireland of which account must be taken and whether harmonisation on all matters is important. The average Unionist would welcome such harmonisation.

Mr. Brynmor John: I intend to delay the House only briefly. I support the draft order. The Minister should not draw comfort from that because all hon. Members who have welcomed it have belaboured him with technical questions.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) was worried about law and order. One of the problems for a bankrupt is that of obtaining credit. If the problem of law and order for the Province is as great as the hon. Gentleman predicates, obtaining credit as a bankrupt over 10 years must be taken into account. The five-year period is better for both creditor and bankrupt.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of the universal relationship of the law in what he said were Unionist and Republican areas. That is a matter not for the Government but for those responsible for civil debts.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In certain areas of Northern Ireland the law cannot be enforced. Those responsible for law enforcement have made representations to hon. Members about the difficulties that they experience. Squatting is an example. That involves law enforcement.

Mr. John: I was dealing with the ascription of the responsibility for law enforcement to the Government. I am prepared to belabour the Government with many things but not with the enforcement of the civil law. That is for the court on application by the creditor.
The bankruptcy and liquidation laws cause the public much anxiety. Even in England and Wales there is room for amendment. When is the Cork committee likely to report? Has it considered the difficult position of the Official Assignee in Northern Ireland cases? In England and Wales the trustee in a bankruptcy, who is not an official of a Government Department, is expected to carry


out the administration of a bankruptcy. A conflict of interests is created by an official from a Government Department carrying out that duty. I wonder whether that matter has been referred to the Cork committee for its consideration and whether the Minister has sought the views of the committee on this updating of the law in advance of its report.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been better to leave the duties of the Official Assignee with the Supreme Court and not transfer them to the Department of Commerce, particularly as this would not have been out of keeping with the situation on the mainland?

Mr. John: This is a possibility. There are possible conflicts of interest that emerge whenever a person is an officer holding a position of trusteeship, which is what he does for the creditors in a bankruptcy, and, at the same time, a servant of a Government Department. I believe that the Cork committee should be asked for its view upon the Northern Ireland practice.
I finish by gently chiding the Minister. When the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments presents a report, commenting however misguidedly, it is worth at least a passing reference in the Minister's introduction of the order and should not be left until the matter is raised from the Back Benches. The Minister should deal with all published criticism so that our debate may be as informed as possible.

Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply to the points made in the debate. I should like to take them in the reverse order to that in which they were made. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for his general welcome to the order and his endorsement of the timing that was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The hon. Member for Pontypridd was right to say that, in relation to this kind of law and its administration, we should not seek to be deterred by the problems of the Province in the wider aspect of law and

order but should seek, where we can, to make changes that we believe to be in the best interests of commercial practice and commercial law. That is the reason for bringing forward the orders now even though I accept the general point of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on the difficulty of enforcing much of the civil law in Northern Ireland, given the circumstances that at present obtain.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd and other hon. Members also raised the question of the Official Assignee. I willingly give the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) an assurance on confidentiality. It is right and proper that such an assurance be given about the manner in which this office will be discharged. We have agreed that the office should be at the level of assistant secretary and above. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will understand that we accept the point about the degree of care and attention to be paid to the difficult role carried out by the Official Assignee. In terms of confidentiality of information, I give the House the assurance that it seeks.
Article 4 of the order is in line with the provisions of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the comparable Great Britain legislation. It is, in our view, necessary for the Department to have power to obtain accounts, returns, vouchers and information in order to carry out full audit investigation and to ensure the protection of public and of private funds. This is especially necessary as the Official Assignee is now an officer of the Department, which would be liable for any loss of funds or general misconduct. On confidentiality and the manner in which the office will be discharged, I can unequivocally answer "Yes" to the question asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. It will be conducted at the high level he seeks and with proper regard to confidentiality.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised points about the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. Has he now left the Official Assignee, or will he refer to the suggestion that reference might be made to the Cork committee?

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me that I had not dealt with that point. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Pontypridd that the question of the Official Assignee's role should be referred to the Cork committee. The Cork committee as at present constituted is restricted in its terms of reference to England and Wales. As I indicated in my opening remarks, while we must look at the general observations made about the law in Great Britain and how it would affect the law in Northern Ireland, I think that the specific terms of reference would preclude the suggestion that the role of the Official Assignee be added at this stage to the committee's terms of reference or, indeed, that they should be widened to include it.
However, I shall take on board the point which has been raised and see whether there are any other ways in which we can obtain a view on the role of the Official Assignee, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that this is a matter which concerns them. I shall endeavour to write to them when I have given consideration to it.
I want now to refer to other matters which have been raised. The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to sums of less than £2,000 being, as it were, interest-free in relation to the credit to their account. I must remind the hon. Member that it is part of our duty to try to ensure that the activities of the Department are reimbursed and that the services are paid for. In our view, while the interest accruing to sums should be available to defray some of the costs which are involved in the administration of these cases, the amount of interest earned by sums under £2,000 would be comparatively small and in most cases would not adequately pay for the services which are provided, whereas interest or sums above £2,000 would make some significant contribution.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In this age of inflation, surely the interest on £1,000 would make a contribution. Surely the people who would be paid are entitled to get some benefit. Of course, perhaps the Minister is afraid that, even with all the cuts, the Government might go bankrupt.

Mr. Shaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in due course in-

terest rates may not be as significant as they currently are. However, with regard to his question, that is why there is a cut-off point at £2,000.
The right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Pontypridd both asked about the Select Committee's report. I take the slightly acerbic point raised by the hon. Gentlemen about that report. In this case, it was hoped that the arrangements made for the publication of the consequential amendments order would meet with the Joint Committee's approval. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South will recognise that this was first raised in connection with another matter for which my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)—has responsibility.
We made certain changes to the setting and the words used to describe this particular order. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments with regard to dating. I accept his view that we did not consider that it was necessarily correct to publish the date of enactment of the major order. However, we hoped that the clear statement which has been made in the explanatory note—that it is a consequential order—would go some way towards meeting the Committee's view. In addition, we felt that the words
Draft Order in Council laid before Parliament
would also make it clear that it was a consequential order, and that in so far as the entitling did not appear in the official legal document, it was something which could be of a more explanatory nature. The right hon. Member for Down, South raised another point which had not at this juncture been considered by me in relation to the view of the Joint Committee. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the phrase "earlier legislation" should be amplified.
In terms of the major order under discussion tonight there are 26 enactments but I take it that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish us to go that far in terms of the consequential order. It would be our intention in discussion with the Joint Committee to ensure that we bring orders before the House—as well as consequential orders—which are as fully and as fairly described as possible.


It is my intention to see that the wishes of the Joint Committee, if possible, can be met in this matter. I will take on board the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and after considering it further I will write to him upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that in the light of subsequent developments we look forward to a more general review as a result of the Cork committee's report. There could be consequences from the Companies Bill and the measure on company law reform now going through the House.
The general intention of these orders is to move as fast as we reasonably can to ensure that in the area of commercial legislation we have a comparable basis of law in Northern Ireland to that in England and Wales. This is some answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. We are concerned that the recommendation of the late Lord MacDermott's committee be put in hand and that the transfer from the judiciary to the Department of Commerce be enacted. That recommendation has been with us for some time. I believe that the House would probably wish to see that we were able to move piece by piece and at least in line with the overall objective set out in the major order.
We seek to find some degree of uniformity between the systems. The systems are different historically and certainly those in Northern Ireland go back a considerable way. It is obviously to the benefit of companies, and indeed of the law operating in Northern Ireland, for the systems in relation to bankruptcy to be brought into line where they can be as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised matters in connection with the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I have already referred to the role of the Official Assignee and I hope that hon. Members will accept that this gives them the assurance they require. The matter of fees was also raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South. The provisions of article 34 of this order are similar to those in article 96 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914.
Although we have included fee-making powers we think that the prece-

dents are sound and it was our understanding that the Law Society, on considering these matters, withdrew its objections when it last met representatives of my Department.
The other matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned the new act of bankruptcy. I understand fully why he should have found this, in particular, a matter worthy of special comment. It is considered that once the judgment enforcement office has determined that a debtor is insolvent his affairs should be subject to an insolvency administration as quickly as possible. For this reason, this new act of bankruptcy was created.
However, I am advised that the fact that a debtor has committed an act of bankruptcy will not prevent the court, as suggested by the Law Society, from making a protection order if the debtor is endeavouring to make an arrangement with his creditors under the control of the court. It is not envisaged that the enforcement of judgments office would make an order which would have the effect of creating an act of bankruptcy in a case where a debtor had demonstrated to that office that he was genuinely seeking to make an arrangement with his creditors.
That is probably the most important assurance that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not believe that there are good grounds for the fear expressed by the Law Society. But the order, as I have already indicated, is a preliminary step to further legislation. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date when the Cork committee will report, but I shall seek to find out and write to him on the matter. When that committee reports, clearly we may seek to review the matter again. During that time, the operation of this provision will be carefully monitored. I undertake that its operation, if it proves unsatisfactory, will be the subject of fresh consideration. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we shall look most carefully at the anxieties that have been expressed, but in our view they are not likely to arise.
I am grateful for the general welcome that has been accorded to both orders. I take the point on procedure. We shall


endeavour to come to a better arrangement with the Select Committee so that we do not offend either the Committee or Members now present in the House. However, I think that the general welcome that has been given to the order is right in so far as it is necessary to make these changes at this time and in so far as they are changes which forecast a general review of practices to see where we can bring them into general line with the law operating in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I commend both orders for the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

CAREERS SERVICE (LEICESTERSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Tom Bradley: My purpose tonight is to draw the attention of the House, and particularly that of the Minister, to the serious situation which is developing in the Leicestershire careers service following senseless and disproportionate cuts made by the county council to the extent that a large question mark now hangs over the future of the service which the council is statutorily required to provide.
Indeed, a main feature article in last week's issue of the Leicester Trader indicated the concern of a number of careers officers within the county to the degree that they forecast the complete collapse of the service within the next five years.
Naturally, this is of immediate concern to those careers officers and supporting staff, numbering over 30, who are being made redundant. But the long-term consequences will adversely affect thousands of young people—school leavers, further

education students and young workers losing or changing their jobs. Unemployed young people will not receive the assistance which their essentially personal difficulties fully deserve. Those still at school and college could be deprived of vital careers guidance facilities. There will be psychological and social problems.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that the careers service's degree of success should not be measured solely by the number of job placings that it achieves. It also gives extremely valuable and useful advice to young people, occasionally by dispelling their illusions about their capabilities or the possible grandeur of jobs that they are seeking. It has to give that kind of compassionate and friendly guidance over a wide spectrum. It should not be judged merely on the extent of the job placings that it achieves.
The Under-Secretary will know that the provision of a careers service is a statutory responsibility imposed on every local authority in England and Wales. It has operated since April 1974 as a consequence of the passage of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The aim of the service is to act as a bridge between full-time education and the world of work by giving guidance and help to enable youngsters to reach realistic and informed decisions about their future careers and related problems.
Successive Ministers have referred to the service as essential, and one required to play a greater role in the light of rising unemployment among school leavers. The careers service is probably the most informed statutory body on the problems faced by youngsters of all levels of ability and all backgrounds.
The Secretary of State has issued guidelines on staffing to local authorities, but they have not been implemented in Leicestershire. Even before the cuts that we are considering tonight, the level of staffing was 20 per cent. below the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. In addition, the increased percentage allocated to the careers service within the rate support grant has not been passed on by many authorities up and down the country, and certainly not passed on in Leicestershire.
For the past two years the careers service has attracted an increased percentage over other local authority services.


One must assume that that is because the Government have recognised the value of the service and its relationship to the youth opportunities programme.
In its zeal to respond to the Government's call for public expenditure cuts, the Leicestershire county council slashed £190,000 off the careers service budget of £420,000. Since that decision was taken, the redundancies have been speeded up to some extent, and the total reduction in the current financial year will be about £164,000 within the total budget. That means that 31 posts out of a total of 83—which constituted the old service in the county—will disappear. On 1 June there will be 30 careers officers and 22 support staff—they will comprise the total service —as against 46 careers officers and 37 support staff who operated previously.
I have mentioned already that prior to these cuts Leicestershire operated a service below the recommended guidelines of the Secretary of State. Part of those guidelines advise that the ratio of careers officers to 15-year-old pupils should be not less favourable than one officer to 375 pupils. Leicestershire's ratio was one to every 437 pupils. I am afraid that it will now become one to every 730 pupils.
When this information was conveyed to the Minister of State, Department of Employment, at a time when he introduced a report on the five-year record of the careers service from 1974–79. he made a remarkably candid ministerial statement. I quote from the Leicester Mercury of 2 February when Lord Gowrie is quoted as saying:
The Leicestershire report has caused me considerable anxiety. I have no powers to alter it but shall go into it to see if a cut on such a scale is necessary.
We have no evidence that local authorities are going to clobber the Careers Service. There is no evidence that the rather alarming report from Leicestershire is being repeated elsewhere.
Another passage follows, in the form of reported speech, which states:
No such rundown or cut in this essential service was warranted, and if the Government thought the service was threatened or youth unemployment would rise as a result, they would take over the service.
Lord Gowrie's alarm is fully justified, and I shall spell out why. There are 15,000 school leavers a year in Leicester-

shire. Last year, 90 per cent. of school leavers were seen by careers officers. In future 50 per cent. only will be seen. The question of which half that will be will have to be resolved, but it is certain that between 7,000 and 8,000 future school leavers will not be offered any careers advice, and they will be given very little help in job placement. There will be no preliminary interviews for third and fourth year children.
Not only statutory school leavers will suffer from the loss of the service. In 1979 the Leicestershire careers service, in addition to interviewing 90 per cent. of school leavers, dealt with no fewer than 1,200 further education full-time students. It saw 2,000 adults and over 13,000 unemployed young people. The Leicester city office alone had 18,000 personal callers last year. Activity on that scale will no longer be possible, and those who succeed in obtaining help from the careers service will have to wait much longer for it. Careers officers will have to become more involved in administrative procedures, thus reducing their time available for direct contacts.
Participation in the Government's youth opportunities programme will be reduced, at a time when youth unemployment in Leicestershire is running at double the 1974 figure. The forecasters are now suggesting a further 40 per cent. rise in youth unemployment this year. That will mean that in the peak period in July there will be no fewer than 3,550 unemployed school leavers in Leicestershire. I remind the Minister that the Manpower Services Commission has said repeatedly that the youth opportunities programme schemes could not take off and operate without the active involvement of the careers service.
Handicapped pupils will suffer, too. There is already only a limited amount of time for this work. In future one specialist officer, instead of two as at present, will try to cope. It will be impossible to deal with those protracted cases that are so often found among disadvantaged persons.
All links with the Open University will be severed, and schools will have to organise their own careers conventions and visiting speakers. That could create extra problems for teachers, and they will not have time to interview their school


leavers. In any case, they are not trained to give vocational guidance.
I have no time to develop other possible effects of these drastic and harmful cuts in the Leicestershire careers service. The Minister told me in reply to a question on 19 March that it was too early to assess the impact on the service. In answer to an earlier question he told me that he was keeping himself informed about the position. That means that he is concerned, and that he is considering possible action. In my view, he should call for an urgent report from his inspectors in the careers services branch. He should arrange for a full discussion of this development in the careers service advisory council in Leicestershire, and he should issue advice to all local authorities—with perhaps two copies for Leicestershire—that it will be harmful to young people if cuts fall disproportionately on the careers service.
I hope that the Minister will say what steps he can take and what pressure he may be able to bring to bear on his political friends on the Leicestershire county council. It is clear that the council has overreached itself with these damaging proposals. There is some evidence to suggest that the decisions were taken in undue haste, and that full consideration was not properly given to all the implications involved.
The careers service is recognised as the only agency that effectively links education and work. A good start in life is vital to young people, who are the future lifeblood of our nation.
The Leicestershire county council has disregarded that basic truth. Other authorities may be tempted to economise on their careers services if the Minister allows Leicestershire to get away with its reckless and irresponsible policy.
The hon. Gentleman's reply will have a wider significance. I hope very much that he will feel able to give the House a positive indication of how he intends to use his influence to protect this important national service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) for his thoughtful and well-presented speech, which draws the

attention of the House to a matter that is of concern to the Government.
The hon. Gentleman is rightly anxious to ensure that young people in Leicestershire receive as much help as possible in making the transition from school to work in the present year, in which, as the Government have acknowledged, the unemployment situation is unlikely to improve. However, I am bound to say that, although Leicestershire is not without its problems, in that respect the area is better placed than many others in the country.
The matter is of public interest, as evidenced not only by the number of questions tabled by the hon. Members for Leicester, East and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), but also by the volume of correspondence that Ministers and officials have received and, indeed, by the newspaper report that the hon. Gentleman referred to.
Besides the question of the Leicestershire careers service, the subject raises the whole issue of the relationship between central Government and local government. It is right to say that the Government are committed to a policy of allowing maximum freedom for local authorities to carry out their statutory duties in whatever way seems best to them in the light of their knowledge and experience of local needs and circumstances.
However, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 13 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been keeping himself informed about the staffing position of the careers service in Leicestershire. It so happens that an inspector of my careers service branch is engaged in an inspection of Leicestershire at present, in the normal course of events.
As the hon. Member for Leicester, East knows, the Employment and Training Act 1973 requires local education authorities to provide a careers service in their areas. Their statutory duty involves providing a vocational guidance service for people attending education institutions, other than universities, and an employment service for people leaving those institutions. Authorities are also expected to make those services available to people in their teens who have recently left the


education system but still wish to use them.
The Act also empowers the Secretary of State to give general guidance to authorities on the way that they run their careers service and to require statistical and other information from authorities about the performance of their duties. That latter power is, for example, the basis of the Secretary of State's inspection of local authority services.
In common with other local government services, the careers service is funded through rate support grant arrangements. As I said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 20 March, the rate support grant
is an unhypothecated block grant in support of local revenue so that decisions on the actual level of the careers service expenditure rest with the local education authorities."—[Official Report, 20 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 318.]
As the hon. Member for Leicester, East will know, although the forecast expenditure on which RSG is based is calculated by looking separately at all the different elements of local authority activity, the RSG settlement itself takes the form of a block grant.
Specific sums of money are not set aside for specific purposes and local authorities are free to determine their own priorities and to allocate the funds received under the RSG arrangements to individual services in accordance with their own policies and wishes, subject to carrying out their statutory duties. In doing so they are of course answerable to their local electorates.
Despite its local character, the careers service as a whole forms an important part of our national manpower machinery, hence the provision in the Employment and Training Act for the Secretary of State to give authorities
guidance of a general character",
to quote the specific words of the Act. The current general guidance in the form of a booklet is contained in a memorandum that was issued to local authorities in April 1975 by the then Secretary of State for Employment. It provides both formal statutory guidance and, additionally, much useful background information and advice to supplement the guidance. It covers such matters as the

title and general aims of the service, the performance of functions by careers officers and matters of organisation, premises and staff.
I should add in passing that the existing guidance and advice is now being revised by my Department's officials in consultation with local authority associations, the Institute of Careers Officers and other interested parties. When completed, the new version will take into account the experience of operating the careers service gained over recent years.
On the subject of staffing the general guidance states:
Careers Officers should be appointed and provided with adequate supporting staff".
In the advice section which follows, the relevant sentence reads:
It is for authorities to determine the staffing levels which are appropriate to the needs of their own Careers Services".
The memorandum then goes on to describe the method of assessing staffing requirements used by the inspectors of the central youth employment executive in earlier years, before the present Act came into force. This method involved a formula which took into account variable factors such as the specific needs of handicapped youngsters, local levels of unemployment and numbers of immigrants, as well as an allowance for general administration of the service.
By using this formula, at that time, it was thought that local authorities, having regard to their particular local circumstances, should aim at a ratio of one careers officer to every 400 14-year-old school children. The average for England and Wales at 31 March 1974 was in fact one officer for each 427 14-year-olds. With the raising of the school leaving age it subsequently became more appropriate to relate the ratio to 15-year-olds, as the hon. Member has mentioned, and the average number per careers officer has fallen to 375.
This represents an improvement in the staffing of the service. It is, however, important to stress that, at the same time, the burdens on the careers service have also increased as have general levels of careers service activity. While adjusting to the new institutional framework created by the Act and the new relationship between local and central government which was involved, the service has had


to accommodate to the very large and sustained increases in youth unemployment over the period, caused by economic recession and compounded by large numbers of youngsters leaving school.
As is shown by the report on the Careers Service 1974–1979, recently published by my Department, the service has responded with some impressive achievements. The total volume of vocational guidance interviews in schools and colleges rose by 30 per cent. to nearly 1·2 million in 1978; vocational guidance to unemployed young people increased by more than 200 per cent. to 274,000 interviews; total placings of young people in employment were maintained at around 200,000 a year and additionally—and very significantly—136,000 young people were recruited by the careers service to the Manpower Services Commission's youth opportunities programme in its first full year of operation. As the report says:
Taken together these figures provide a measure of the impressive performance of the Careers Service throughout the country during a period of severe challenges and growing expectations about its role".
It is right, therefore, that, on behalf of the Government, I should pay tribute to the careers service nationally and emphasise once again the continuing importance we attach to its work. As tangible evidence of their support the Government have maintained, and indeed enlarged, the special scheme to strengthen the staffing of the careers service in those areas of the country most affected by high youth unemployment. This scheme provides for the appointment of specialist staff to work with unemployed young people both to help place them in jobs and to recruit them to the youth opportunities programme. It is wholly funded by specific grant from the central Government to the employing local authorities and at present allows for a total of 740 staff in Great Britain as a whole; this is of course, additional to the 5,700 regular careers service staff employed by authorities in Great Britain. Moreover, in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 20 March, I indicated that our RSG forecast for 1980–81 allowed for an increase in real terms in expenditure on the careers service.
Nevertheless, as I made clear in replies to parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and

for Leicester East, on 17 March and 25 March respectively, it is the Government's policy not to exempt any services, except where the preservation of law and order is concerned, from their call for a reduction in public expenditure. An overall reduction and the transfer of resources to the wealth-creating parts of the economy are necessary for the development of the economy and the future prosperity which we all desire. Local authorities responsible to local electors must be free to determine how best to effect economies across the general range of their services in the light of their own varying circumstances. The careers service cannot be excluded from this general principle.
This is not to say that the central Government should not interest themselves in the response of individual authorities, but there is a delicate balance in which local autonomy must not be infringed and the need for difficult choices has to be recognised. As the Layfield report on local government finance said:
The rate support grant was intended to give local authorities greater freedom in the disposal of the financial resources available to them.
It is against that background that we have come to consider the decision of the Leicestershire county council to reduce its careers service budget for 1980–81 by £135,000. There is no disagreement as to the main effects. Staff numbers will be reduced by about 30 from the previous level of 83, and the effect will be to reduce the staffing ratio from 1:430 15year-old pupils to about 1:750. This will be more unfavourable than that of any other authority, and will come at a time when levels of youth unemployment in Leicestershire are unlikely to improve. The effects will be only partially mitigated by the maintenance of the present four and a half specially funded posts to which I referred earlier and which are allocated to the authority. The Government are particularly concerned that the Leicestershire careers service may be unable to give sufficient attention to the youth opportunities programme to ensure the achievement locally of the two undertakings to school leavers and the longterm unemployed.
I understand that the authority hopes to offset these careers service reductions to some extent by greater activity on the part of careers teachers. I would only


say that while the precise relationship between the careers service and careers education in schools is for local determination, the respective functions are essentially complementary and not interchangeable. In particular, careers teachers are not generally trained and experienced in the work of vocational guidance as are professional careers officers, and of course they cannot be expected to maintain the same close links with employers and an up-to-date knowledge of the local industrial situation.
My officials have held discussions with the leader and other elected members and senior officers of the Leicestershire county council to establish the facts and the consequences of the decision. I have recently met the council leader personally. As a result of these various contacts, I well understand the difficult choices facing the authority as it prepared to revise the budgetary estimates in keeping with the need for overall savings. Its problems were made worse by the fact that there had been a considerable overspending on the education budget, from which the careers service is financed, in the previous year. Savings to be achieved on the school meals service have proved notably less than was earlier hoped. It thus had very little room for manoeuvre and decided that cuts in the careers service were unavoidable.
The immediate prospect, therefore, is that the Leicestershire careers service will be affected both by the cuts and by the adjustments they will entail. The hon. Gentleman may, however, take some measure of encouragement from the fact that the leader of the council has undertaken to me that he will be monitoring the effects of the reductions on the actual performance of the careers service, and I have asked him to try to ensure at the very least that the service's existing structure will be kept intact. As a matter of course the careers service inspectorate is currently conducting an inspection in parts of Leicestershire, and will be ready to advise and assist in whatever way it can. Furthermore, I have been informed that, if circumstances permit, the council hopes that the rebuilding of the strength of its careers service can start in the 1981–82 financial year.
Although, therefore, I share the hon. Member's concern about the reductions in the Leicestershire careers service, I know from my own discussions that the county council is equally concerned and we shall be maintaining close contact with it to monitor developments and prospects over the coming year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned acordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o'clock.